Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Local Government Services

Mr. Roger Knapman: I beg to move,
That this House notes the widespread discontent with the inadequacies of local government services in parts of Britain, particularly in many inner city areas, as demonstrated by piles of rubbish in the streets of Liverpool and the promotion of eccentric minority interests such as 'gay' advice centres and nuclear-free zones; notes that a number of councils have not collected outstanding domestic rates and have barely started their community charge collection; further notes that this civic disarray is confined to councils controlled by Labour and their allies; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to save the residents of these boroughs by insisting on value-for-money, appropriate competitive tendering and rigorous controls on overspending.
I hope that my hon. Friends will feel that on this occasion I have at least been able to introduce a timely subject, having regard to recent press reports on certain local councils. It was originally my intention to talk especially about rate support grants, local government finance Acts, rating and valuation Acts, and so on. We could have had a detailed debate on those issues. We could almost have taken them clause by clause and in such a way as to suggest that the Mace ought to be under rather than on the Table.
As we have not examined the role of local government for so many years, I hope that my hon. Friends will not be too tempted to detail the activities of individual councils, although that must be very tempting when we see who is here this morning. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) may feel tempted during the debate to mention Derbyshire council's record. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) is very close to the scene in Liverpool. If he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is possible that the word "Liverpool" will cross his lips. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), who has such detailed knowledge of the loonier London councils, may find that the word "Hackney" just drops from his lips between now and some time later this morning.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: My hon. Friend is being grossly unfair to many Labour London councils. If I were to mention only Hackney, a whole bunch of lunatics would feel grossly insulted that they had been left out of the list.

Mr. Knapman: My hon. Friend is probably right. I merely say, however, that I want this to be as productive a debate as possible, in which we examine the full role of local councils—principally as enablers rather than as providers. If, however, my hon. Friend feels that in London there are other examples besides Hackney where they have not got things entirely right, I hope that he will

feel free, subject to catching your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, to mention them—and even, perhaps, to mention them by name.
I can hardly say that the Opposition Benches are packed this morning, but unless some Opposition Member wants to admit to it now, I do not believe that the Militant Tendency wing of the Labour party is represented here this morning. There is one potential candidate, but he is busy reading the Orders of the Day, so I do not think that he is claiming to be a member of Militant Tendency.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I could send the hon. Gentleman a copy of a pamphlet that I wrote a few years ago called "The Public Face of Militant", which was an analysis and critique of its politics. It criticised them strongly and suggested a socialist alternative. The hon. Gentleman should be clear about the politics of Opposition Members. Despite the fact that there are some things of value in the Militant analysis, there are mistakes in the way that its ideas are presented. We could have a full debate on those issues, but that would reduce the time available for the motion before us today.

Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making his position clear and for confirming that there are only some things of value undertaken by the Militant Tendency. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's socialist purity is shown by the vivid red colour of his tie. I hope that, while criticising his hon. Friends who are members of the Militant Tendency, he is also criticising them for not being here today. I understand that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) is unable to take part in the forthcoming by-election in Liverpool, Walton.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Why is that?

Mr. Knapman: My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) asks why. A Back Bencher is a very busy person. The by-election will last for only about three weeks, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Broadgreen has many demands on his time. I thought—and perhaps my hon. Friend also thought—that Liverpool, Broadgreen and Liverpool, Walton were some distance apart. I looked at a map of Liverpool and found that they are adjoining constituencies, so the hon. Member for Broadgreen must be a very busy man indeed.
Suffice it to say that the subject of "corpy land" will come to the fore in this debate. "Corpy" rhymes with "Gorby" and both try to look after people from womb to tomb. I read with interest an article by Mr. Ronald Faux in The Times this morning. He said that "Liverpool had a red letter day yesterday—it had a visit from the shadow Environment spokesman, our friend, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), whose view of Liverpool is rather different from most. The article reports the hon. Member for Dagenham as saying
that Liverpool had been ill-served by the Tory government as the city struggled with a legacy of a Militant-dominated council that had allowed problems in the city to fester.
So it is not the moderate or the real Labour party, but the Tory Government, who are to blame. That is one point of view but I shall draw attention to a few comments made by Mr. Keva Coombes and others who were formerly in power for the Militant Tendency in Liverpool. Unlike the hon. Member for Dagenham, even they no longer suggest that Liverpool's ills stem from a Tory Government

Mr. Anthony Steen: I rise in sorrow rather than in anger, having represented the constituency of Liverpool, Wavertree from 1974 to 1983. I was the only Conservative Member of Parliament for Liverpool at that time. I am a tremendous admirer of the Liverpudlian. He has a wonderful sense of humour; he is generous, loyal, supportive, innovatory and enterprising. However, despite this Government having pumped more public money into Liverpool than any previous Government have done, the Liverpudlian has been misled by his leaders.
They have followed extremism, Militant Tendency and militant trade unionism in the belief that that would provide salvation, instead of pursuing capitalism and private enterprise, and instead of giving the Government, who have given them so much money, an opportunity to make progress. Does not my hon. Friend deeply regret that the decent, working-class Liverpudlian has been so badly misled by the left wing and by Militant Tendency, when he could make progress along the lines suggested by the Government?

Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose record as the Member of Parliament for Liverpool, Wavertree—as I believe the constituency was called before reorganisation—was remarkable. I am sure that he looked after his constituents well in what was at that time already a fairly difficult area, thanks to the local council's activities. That is proof of what we have always suspected. We believe that, if we are to attract people's votes, people must feel well off and prosperous, but in a Labour-controlled area the reality is different.
I have not been to Liverpool, Walton, but I believe that the theory must be to weld together all the various factions and self-interest groups so that, in the end, everyone relies on the corporation for a job or a house. Unless one is proved to be a committed supporter of Militant or of the Labour party—they are the same thing—one will not get very far. Everyone is sucked into the system, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) for confirmation that that is so.
That leads me to my next point. The Roman Catholic archbishop and our own Bishop of Liverpool were tempted to say yesterday:
We are convinced the present confrontational tactics can achieve only civic chaos and widespread hardship.
In fact, the matter could be cleared up relatively easily.
One of the most pressing problems at the moment is that of uncollected rubbish.

Mr. William O'Brien: We get it here.

Mr. Knapman: The Labour party's Front-Bench spokesman says that we get it here, and I acknowledge that Labour are experts on rubbish. I understand that, three weeks ago, the few Conservatives on Liverpool city council moved a motion to allow private companies to be brought in to take away the rubbish. That motion received no support from the Labour party, from Militant or from the moderates.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: It did.

Mr. Knapman: The hon. Gentleman says that it did. All right, we shall leave out any more suggested parties, but I do not see the same nodding from Labour's Front-Bench spokesman. Why did the council not call in a private firm

to clear the rubbish three weeks ago? I am sure that we shall find out when the the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) speaks later.
At the moment, the 450 council dustmen are, if not on strike, not doing too much. In fact, I suggest that, to judge from the size of the piles of rubbish, one would have a job to tell whether they were on strike or not. However, help is at hand.
The article in The Times stated:
UK Waste Control was prepared to interview anyone looking for a job and"—
this is a novel suggestion for the area
would employ them on their merits.
However, it would not take on all 450 council dustmen even though they do not work very much, because it would need only 250 dustmen to provide the city with a good weekly collection service.
UK Waste Control realises that in the 1990s it is not necessary to recognise trade unions, but said that it would not discriminate against workers who were union members. Perhaps it has the old-fashioned notion that workers are interested in the wages that they will receive, and the 250 workers will be able to share between them the same wages—or similar—as those of the 450 workers.

Mr. Tony Banks: I had not intended to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's speech because, as he knows, I have only just entered the Chamber, and I apologise for interrupting. However, from what I have heard, the hon. Gentleman's facts are wrong so I can only assume that the earlier part of his speech was equally incorrect. The fact is that half the work force will be employed, and I understand that it will receive a reduction, not an increase, in wages.

Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) for just walking in. The hon. Gentleman will be flattered when I tell him that I wish to quote him at some length because he makes his point as a result of his considerable experience in London and especially through his proposals for a greater London authority. We note his view that dustmen, and presumably everyone else, should be paid according to his social dimension, rather than according to the price that they can readily command. We note especially that he has no fear that having 450 dustmen to do the jobs that 250 could readily do poses any great problem for the modern-day socialist party led by the great economist, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), who says that Labour must learn to run capitalism better than the Conservatives do. Labour could make a start by not employing 450 dustmen when only 250 are required.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) plainly supports the system that was in place in Liverpool until the council meeting on Wednesday. Let us be clear what that system is, which the Labour party supports. It was a system in which, quite corruptly, job nominations were given to the unions in the full knowledge that those unions were completely dominated by Militant. People were given jobs by the trade unions—not on merit and not on job application, but through direct placement by unions. Four years ago, the so-called "moderate" Labour party took over Liverpool, but that system is still in place. Labour left it there and knows that it is corrupt, but did not do anything about it.

Mr. Knapman: My hon. Friend is absolutely and characteristically right. This may be the time to draw the attention of the House to an excellent article in The Sunday Express of 16 June. It is headed: "Focus on a Sick City", and says:
Rotting Borough. Liverpool's Labour-run council is the worst in history".
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South may have something to say about that. Certainly Liverpool is among the worst councils. In the article, Mr. Bruce Anderson says:
During most of the past two decades, the Labour party has run Liverpool.
That is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West.
The article continues:
For a time, the Militant Tendency effectively controlled the city's Labour Party and therefore the city's government, but in recent years the so-called moderates have reasserted themselves. That has made no difference to Liverpool.
That is absolutely right. Is the situation in Liverpool now any different from that of 1979?

Mr. Richard Holt: It is worse.

Mr. Knapman: My hon. Friend says that it is worse, but it must be a close thing. I agree with all the excellent article by Mr. Anderson—except one point. He says:
If Militant had their way Liverpool would quickly resemble Albania.
That is not fair to Albania, because in the past week or two, the ruling Albanian Labour party has had a three-day congress. The subject of the congress was to debate whether to change the name from the Labour party to the Socialist party. That is making rapid progress and will leave that lot on the Opposition Benches as by far the most left-wing party in Europe.
The hon. Member for Broadgreen is not here to advise us on Militant Tendency. I regret that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) is also not here. They were here yesterday during Business Questions, when I asked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—this is no criticism—to use his endeavours to see that one of them was here. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East would have been so helpful this morning. We could have heard a few emollient words from him, drawing on his experience as industrial relations officer with the Alvis car company. That makes me grateful that I never bought an Alvis car, and I am not in the least surprised that Alvis went bust.

Mr. Holt: Does my hon. Friend think that the absence of the two illustrious Members is accounted for by the fact that they have taken their place at the front of the massing crowds for the victory parade today after the gallantry of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and civilians in the Gulf war?

Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In view of his comment, I am tempted to suggest that someone goes out to see whether that is true. Having regard for the number of hon. Members on the Benches this morning, I think that we had better rely on press reports in due course. There were enough who dissented in the voting Lobbies to show us that neither the hon. Members for Broadgreen and for Coventry, South-East, nor 52 or 53 of their colleagues are likely to be interested in military victory in the Gulf area.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my hon. Friend consider that there is any significance in the fact

that today, not a single Labour Member for the city of Liverpool is present for a debate on Liverpool? May not it reflect their sheer embarrassment that Labour government in action is being paraded? They would rather keep a low profile and keep the Liverpool Labour government unexposed.

Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion. I do not entirely agree with him that it is a disgrace that none of the Liverpool Members is here this morning. I have every confidence that, when we read the Monday morning papers, we shall find that they suddenly realised the enormity of the problems of Liverpool and will be pictured with shovels in their hands helping to clear the rubbish away from the streets of Liverpool. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion, but I believe that the reason that I have given is the only reason why Liverpool Members could not be present for our debate.
I should hate the debate to be conducted along what might be termed party political lines, and I want especially to mention the rating and valuation Acts. I leave it to my hon. Friends to make political points about individual Labour councils.
One of the most important aims at present is to control inflation. Some £1 in every £4 is now spent by local authorities. Neither this Government nor any other would have the slightest chance of controlling inflation unless they had some control over expenditure by local councils. For 40 or 50 years, we have not looked at the real role of local authorities—what they should provide in goods and services and what they should not provide. In 1946 and 1947, with hundreds of thousands of troops coming back from the war, it was necessary to have a crash building exercise. The laws of supply and demand were so separate then that even a certain amount of Government planning was necessary to meet the demand. Large council estates were built.
For the next 30 years, no one questioned whether councils should be not only the enablers of Governrnent legislation, but the providers of such houses. There were Parker Morris standards, under which a family of two was entitled to 802 sq ft of accommodation. If there were three people, it might be 846 sq ft. It was incumbent on the local council to tell people precisely what colour the front door should be. There was no question of trusting the people to make the really big decisions that affected their lives. None of that has been questioned.
We have had debate after debate about finding some popular form of tax. The reality is that people pay taxes in sorrow and rates in anger. Whatever, form of rates, council tax or community charge that we come up with, there will be people who are not happy because they have been losers. It is time that we addressed not only the way in which councils are financed, but the role that we expect them to play.

Mr. Holt: Was my hon. Friend here in the past few days? If so, he would have heard the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) say that a Labour Government would not cap any local authority unless fraud was involved. Does not that mean that the Government's announcement yesterday about the potential £35 billion overspill in spending was a gross underestimate because they did not include the environmental increases that would result from a return to the rating system?

Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. The sayings of the hon. Member for Dagenham never cease to mystify me, although I would not wish the hon. Gentleman to know what an interest I take in them in case he should consider it a form of flattery. Having consulted the hon. Gentleman's collected works, I can only come up with one suggestion, although I should first point out that I have relatives in New Zealand and Australia. It can only be the fact that the hon. Gentleman was born down under that enables him to turn the truth on its head with such ease.
I was saying that local councils need to be enablers and not providers. We have debated the various methods of funding local authorities but not what we expect them to do. I look forward to hearing the Minister's speech in due course. I know that he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be considering not only the financing of local authorities but the paper recently published on the structure of local authorities. I ask them please not to lose sight of what we expect authorities to do. When local authorities are providers rather than enablers, they are always monopoly providers. That means socialism, and socialism means queues, as exemplified in the case of Liverpool—but I leave it to my hon. Friends to talk about Liverpool.
I am fortunate to represent a most attractive part of the country. There is some lovely countryside around Stroud. I have considerable respect for the vast majority of councillors and council officers at Stroud and it saddens me when they come in for criticism. When they do, it is always for the same reason: it is when they decide to be providers as well as enablers. It is because of that that they are permanently short of money. There is always a reason why they need more money. I examined the council's spending record this morning, and I have to say, that, even in Stroud—which is no Liverpool, thank heavens—the district council has trebled its spending in nine years, while Gloucestershire county council has doubled its expenditure in five years. That is a substantial increase. I repeat that, now that £1 in every £4 throughout the country is spent by local authorities, we must consider the matter very carefully if we are to control inflation.
Criticism of the council saddens me because I believe that the vast majority of councillors and council officers at Stroud and in the shire hall at Gloucester do their very best —although one or two Green councillors occasionally do silly things such as debating until 2 am whether a local park should be called Chico Mendes park. I wonder why no one asks what is the cost to the charge payer of the full council, with all its officers present, meeting until 2 am. That is something that local newspapers could well take up and question.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Knapman: Now that the hon. Gentleman has been in the Chamber for several minutes, I shall give way to him again.

Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman is making a critical point about Stroud council and the cost of holding council meetings. Has he considered what is the cost of our all being here today to hear the debate that he has initiated? I suggest that it would keep Stroud in council meetings from now until the end of the decade.

Mr. Knapman: The hon. Gentleman was on his feet within a few seconds of walking into the Chamber and there is no doubt that any shortlist of those who detain the House most often would include him. I remember only one brief speech from the hon. Gentleman, which was when he walked in one day and said, "We need a revolution"—a statement that appeared in the day's headlines. I do not know whether he meant that we needed a revolution in the whole country or just in Liverpool. We may be a little wiser if the hon. Gentleman catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, although personally I doubt it.

Mr. Holt: As the only hon. Member present who represents a constituency in the north-east of England, may I ask the House to note the dedication of the man who was shot and killed yesterday while carrying out his work for his local authority—albeit a Labour-controlled authority? It would be nice if the House took note of that, and I should be grateful if the Minister took it on board.

Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Those of us who watched the news simply could not believe that that was happening in this country, and our thoughts are very much with that man's family.
Before I was so rudely interrupted by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, I was criticising not my council, as the council officers and the majority of councillors have the best needs of the area at heart, but two or three Green councillors who thought it necessary to debate the subject of Chico Mendes. I am sure that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West will remember well who Chico Mendes was, although, happily, many of us do not.

Mr. Tony Banks: Another man who gave his life for a good cause.

Mr. Knapman: The hon. Gentleman says that he was another man who gave his life for a good cause.
Problems with councils arise time after time. In the past day or two, I have read extensively in the Library and have consulted the debates in 1979, when the last Labour Government were going under. At that time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) initiated an Adjournment debate on why it was necessary to have direct labour organisations. If councils seek to be both providers and enablers, their enabling function must involve putting services out to tender, and that process is not very convincing if one of the groups of people who are tendering has a direct interest with the local authority.
On the shortlist of services that should not be permitted to be run by any council are leisure centres, which seem to soak up money at a rate of knots. For the life of me, I cannot see why local councils need to run car parks and shopping malls. If my hon. Friends or I decide that we want to invest in a shopping mall, it should be our decision, subject to negotiations with our bank managers. If we make a wrong decision, it is our fault. But when local councils go into property development and make a bish of things, they merely send the bill to the community charge payer, which is just not good enough.

Mr. O'Brien: What about members of Lloyd's?

Mr. Knapman: Having taken the Killingholme Generating Stations (Ancillary Powers) Bill through the House the other night, I am used to references to the council of Lloyd's. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, have


been generous in allowing a wide-ranging debate and I realise that wide-ranging speeches can be taken in a number of ways, but the debate would need to be very wide ranging for the hon. Gentleman to bring in the council of Lloyd's. Perhaps he thinks that rather than being self regulating, that, too, should be brought within the ambit of a council, in which case the hon. Member for Newham, North-West will make the case for him, albeit not very well.

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman said that people who make business deals should stand by their decisions. I was merely asking whether that should not also apply to Lloyd's.

Mr. Knapman: As I have a direct interest, I have not formed a particular view on the subject.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Boateng has.

Mr. Knapman: As my hon. Friend says, the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) made an eloquent speech on the subject in the Finance Bill Committee. If the hon. Member for Normanton has strong feelings about it, I suggest that he reads that speech, because everyone tells me that it was excellent. As I said, I have a direct interest in the matter, so I do not especially wish to know what the hon. Gentleman said. I see that the hon. Member for Normanton is nodding. I suspect that he has already read that speech, in which case I do not understand his intervention.

Mr. Arnold: My hon. Friend will be interested to know that the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) made yet another pledge on behalf of the Labour party. He proposed to spend more than £50 million on bailing out rich people who had put their money into Lloyd's and accepted the risk. It was very interesting—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The motion is wide-ranging, but the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) has just made it even wider. We must now return to the matter before us.

Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, although I would not put it past the Labour party to think of the corporation of Lloyd's as an essential feature of local government provision. I accept your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Normanton for his intervention. I am fortunate that, in Stroud, we have committed councillors and council officers. Many people want to come to live in the Cotswolds. I wish that I could say the same about other areas.
The right hon. Member for Islwyn is trying hard to get people to believe that Militant now suddenly is one party, and that the Labour party is another. In particular, he want us to believe that about Liverpool. In past months, when the headlines were different, he would have had us believe it about London—that all bad councils were under the separate Militant influence. The right hon. Gentleman may wish to ponder a few facts.
I wonder whether hon. Members remember Linda Bellos, the former leader of Lambeth council. I was surprised to find that, in a speech at Brunel university, she admitted that the people in Lambeth had been
failed by the education system, failed by the anachronistic rating system, and, yes, failed by municipal housing.

I expect that that will come as news to Labour Members. Ms. Bellos also commented on education:
The dozen education authorities with the worst GCSE results in maths and English are all Labour-controlled.
On housing, she said:
The twenty authorities with the worst rent arrears are all Labour-controlled.
All that was best summarised by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who said:
If you have a council that is as monumentally incompetent as Brent's been in the last few years, it rightly gets a major vote of censure from the public.
Referring to Camden and Haringey, he said:
I think that people running things now are just like the Vichy regime in France under the Nazis.
That is a nice statement from the Labour party.
Just in case anyone thinks that the hon. Gentleman was not correct, the Queen's counsel report on Islington council stated:
Having the cash office staffed by the innumerate, the filing done by the dyslexic and disorganised, and reception by the surly or charmless seems to us a recipe for administrative chaos.
That has been the position in London for some years.

Mr. David Wilshire: Do not the examples quoted by my hon. Friend prove the truth of his earlier point about monopoly service provision? When Labour councillors become obsessed with playing politics and chasing their loony left ideas, they take their eye off the real reason why they are there—which is to deliver services. They can get away with that because of the monopoly provision that they enjoy. They play at their politics and could not care less about local people.

Mr. Knapman: My hon. Friend makes his point exceptionally well. Any sensible person will realise that monopolies are bad, yet there has never been a speech from Labour Members admitting that—at least, not while they have been in office. That is why I chose the comments of the hon. Member for Brent, East. Once he had left office as leader of the former Greater London council, he proved that he had always known precisely what had been happening.
I hope that someone will follow up the criticism currently levelled at Lambeth, where head teachers are to make an unprecedented appeal to the Government to intervene in the running of the education system in that borough.
I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to contribute to the debate, but I want briefly to make a few points about Labour reform. I shall deal first with London. The Evening Standard said about Londoners:
They have suffered too long under loony-Left councils that charge record poll tax bills and then leave the streets unswept and the schools unstaffed while wasting millions on corruption, excessive expenses, inefficiency, waste, equal-opportunities, thought-police and lesbian and gay raffia-work co-operatives.
Is it any wonder that I am confused between London and Liverpool? That quotation is apposite to both.
It was not until I saw the ranking of authorities by percentage of vacant dwellings that I realised that I had to say something about Liverpool. At 8·1 per cent., its percentage of vacant dwellings is well ahead of anywhere else in the country. The council is a complete shambles. The right hon. Member for Islwyn says that it is not the fault of the Labour party—it is the fault of Militant. Of course, he did not always say that. The Sunday Times may


have quoted him saying that last Sunday, but it has not always been the case. Back in 1981, the right hon. Gentleman said:
The Labour Party needs to be more left wing than it's ever been before.
By 1983, he was saying that:
people over emphasise the Militant danger.
By 1985, it was:
I am deeply antagonistic towards Militant. I want nothing to do with it. I want them out of the Labour party … we shall act very toughly.
Avid followers of the right hon. Gentleman's quotations will appreciate why I have found it necessary to precis some of his remarks.
By 1990, the right hon. Gentleman made one very direct remark—that
there is no room for them"—
that is, Militant—
in this Party.
He did not think then that Militant was a separate organisation. Is the lady who is standing under the title of the "Real Labour Party" really separate from the Labour party?

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: She was not six weeks ago.

Mr. Knapman: Indeed, she was not even five weeks ago.
We have plenty of information about Militant. I am grateful to the 103 colleagues who signed early-day motion 992, which condemns the so-called moderate Labour party for its record in Liverpool. My only criticism is that the early-day motion states that:
the two Labour parties bicker about who is to blame.
There are not two Labour parties—Militant is part and parcel of the Labour party. Labour and its Militant wing are responsible for the terrible records on housing, education, ethnic groups and so on.
Councillor Keva Coombes—it it Mr. or Mrs?—[Hots. MEMBERS: "M r."] It is Mr. Keva Coombes. Apparently, he was a prominent Labour man. He has admitted that the council fiddled the figures to ensure that its work force, rather than a private sector company, won a contract put out to compulsory tender. The present leader of the council said:
We know we are over-staffed. We know we are inefficient.
According to Mr. Coombes, Liverpool's last major management report was made in 1965:
It took us twenty-one years to implement and even then we didn't do it all.
The council bought a very fancy computer, but nobody knows how to work it. I therefore do agree that for them actually to privatise a certain part of their business—and I say business instead of local government—is excellent news.
The council is now to arrange for its rubbish to be cleared by a private firm, at a fraction of the usual cost, yet only three weeks ago not a single Labour councillor would support such a motion. That is a great step forward, although I imagine that it sticks in the craw of Labour Members.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Has it occurred to my hon. Friend that it is rather sad that the private company that will do that work is French? The

implication canvassed in the Liverpool newspapers is that no local company would dare to take the contract for fear of intimidation by the trade unionists in the city.

Mr. Knapman: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point.
As I said earlier, I do not believe that councils should any longer be providers rather than enablers. Part of the business of enablers is to put contracts out to tender, but who would go to the bother of tendering—which can be both expensive and time-consuming—when they suspect that the contract is already sewn up by people who live in some annex of the city council offices? That has happened for far too long. I read out the admission by Councillor Coombes that the council fiddled the figures to ensure that its work force won the contract. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South was right to point out that people may tolerate that one, two or even three times, but they will not be fooled for ever. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.
Liverpool is a ghastly socialist mess. The aim of politics is to produce not problems but solutions. That is why I was in the Library for so long this week—reading the fascinating debates in 1979 about strike after strike throughout the country. Along came Lord Callaghan, who said, "Crisis? What crisis?" People did not appreciate his remark, or his sun tan.
People under 35 do not remember socialism. They do not remember when the unions were constantly on strike or 1979, when hospital porters decided whether a person was really ill and would have an operation. They do not remember when dock committees decided whether commodities were perishable and therefore whether they would be given permission to be unloaded.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: That finished Liverpool off.

Mr. Knapman: Yes. People under 35 do not remember grave diggers going on strike.

Mr. Barry Porter: I have listened courteously and carefully to my hon. Friend's comments about Liverpool. Much of what he said about the Liverpool branch of the Labour party is entirely correct, but Liverpool has never been finished off and will not be finished off while I have anything to do with it.

Mr. Knapman: My hon. Friend is right. There is nothing wrong. There is nothing different about Liverpool, except that it is in the stranglehold of socialism and monopoly public provision.

Mr. Fearn: I agree that Liverpool is definitely not finished. The hon. Gentleman referred to the port. Does he know the figures? Liverpool port, which is in my area of Sefton, trebled its profits over the past three years. I agree that the dock labour scheme was probably one of the solutions. Should not the hon. Gentleman be saying what a good job the Liverpool docks are doing?

Mr. Knapman: Indeed. The Government have introduced many excellent financial and legislative initiatives to ensure that one day Liverpool will overcome the Militant Labour menace. I think that the hon. Gentleman could agree with that.
Just in case people re-elect Militant, I suggest that there is a way forward. I have one solution: we could make Liverpool into a holiday area. People under 35 and, for that matter, those who are older who need to be reminded


what it is like in a socialist area may be interested in visiting it as a living museum to socialism. At one stage, I had hopes for Albania, but the Albanians are changing their ways.
I wonder whether Trusthouse Forte could be prevailed upon to offer hotel accommodation—two days of dinner, bed and breakfast and a tour of "corpy land", carefully landscaped with mountains of rubbish and teeming with wildlife. Of course, the package would have to be provided at a preferential rate because when one goes to Liverpool, Walton in "corpy land", one is subject to "out-of-pocket" expenses. When a contract says, "Subject to availability", it means, "In the unlikely event that no one is on strike."
The reality is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford says, that socialism is brain dead and only the odd limb still twitches. The odd limb is still twitching in Liverpool, and it is time it was cut off.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: We have heard quite a lot about Liverpool, about which I may speak as well, but we are talking about local government services. I have much sympathy with the motion, although not all of it appeals to me. Some people believe that local government is simply a system of services. Some believe that local government services should be those involving no significant national interest. I reject that view. We believe that local government's role is and must remain deep seated.
It is essential in the negotiations to have liaison and communication between local government and national Government. Since 1986, there does not appear to have been much negotiation or co-operation between the two, probably because of the intervention of the notorious poll tax. The rift became clear when the poll tax came on the scene. I am pleased that lately there has been a truce. The Prime Minister met members of organisations and associations representing local government, and I sincerely hope that from now on there will be the co-operation to which I have looked forward.
It is a pity that the poll tax came on the scene. It was a crippling blow to local government, and will remain so for at least the next 18 months to two years. It means that local authorities have to withstand the effect of £800 million in total on their budgets—that is according to Audit Commission figures, not figures that anyone has cooked up. There is a widening gulf between local government and national Government because of the poll tax. The sooner the poll tax is out of the way, the sooner local government budgets can operate effectively.

Mr. Nicholls: If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the burdens imposed on local government, why is his party resolutely opposed to any form of capping?

Mr. Fearn: We should not at this stage speak about capping. When we think of it, we think of extra burdens on the poll tax payer, or on the ratepayer of the distant past. Figures cited in a debate the other day showed that Liverpool people were having to pay £79 more because of non-payment of the poll tax. In Bootle, because of non-payers, £31 has been added to the bills of people who pay regularly. The authority should get rid of that imposition as soon as possible.
I used to be a banker—

Mrs. Currie: The hon. Gentleman was not a banker—he was an assistant bank manager.

Mr. Fearn: I am sure that the hon. Lady reads "Who's Who". There should never be such an imposition on those who pay their debts.

Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fearn: Yes, I shall give way—for the second time.

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point —for the second time. Recently, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) conceded to me in a debate that in no circumstances would a Liberal Democrat Government impose capping on local authorities. For the second time, I ask the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) how he can complain about impositions on local taxpayers when his party has pledged to have no capping structure?

Mr. Fearn: I do not believe that we would ever cap an authority. Capping is an imposition on people. It depends whom the people elect. They have great choice about whom to elect, and capping is no doubt a factor when they make that choice.

Mr. Barry Porter: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the Liberals' position on central Government control of local finance, or is there to be no such control? And if so, how would he control the rate of inflation, the money supply and all the rest?

Mr. Fearn: I like to think that local government can get on with the job that it has been asked to do and that central Government will not continually pull the strings and restrict its resources.
It is a pity that the Government have commissioned a three-month study into the wholesale privatisation of white collar services in local government. The study, which has been well reported, is to be carried out by the PA Consulting Group. It is looking at the extension of compulsory competitive tendering to libraries, finance departments, engineering services, environmental health departments, trading standards departments, building-related services and personnel departments. Services in those areas, and especially health and safety standards, would be bound to suffer as spending cuts would put at risk more than a million local authority jobs. Those are services and jobs for which local authorities are definitely responsible. As has been recorded, there has already been a 19 per cent. cut in the number of health and safety staff in some authorities.
The public are not helped when museums struggle to survive. We need Government clarification on the status of local authority art collections to prevent the sales of works of art that are of benefit to the public. I believe that Derbyshire county council found a loophole which enabled it to make such sales. That loophole should now be closed.

Mr. Tony Favell: The hon. Gentleman would help my hon. Friends and me if he could tell us whether the Liberal party is opposed to the contracting-out of services. Having said that the port of Liverpool has been saved by the abolition of the dock labour scheme, why on earth can he not recognise that Liverpool might be saved by the Conservative policies that are advocated by this Government instead of continuing to suffer the


socialist degradation that has been going on in Liverpool not only under the control of the Labour party, but previously under the control of the Liberal party?

Mr. Fearn: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point. As he is aware, I served on what was at times the notorious Merseyside county council under the pleasure or otherwise of the leadership of Keva Coombs. Naturally, I did not agree with a terrific amount of what went on, but one thing with which I did agree was that the council recognised the degradation in Liverpool's housing stock and did something about it. However, with the exception of some minor measures, I cannot say that I was ever in wholehearted agreement with anything that happened in Liverpool under socialist rule.
As has been well reported in the Chamber, about 700,000 houses are now standing empty in the country, but it is rarely stated that 600,000 of those houses are in the private sector. Central and local government must tackle private housing deterioration by an efficient and fully resourced improvement grant programme. I sincerely hope that the Minister will comment on that in his reply. Council tenants should receive an improved repair service as that would help to achieve the consumer satisfaction that has so far not been achieved in Liverpool, where estate residents have been badly let down by the council. Liverpool city council admits that 5,733 local authority properties are vacant and that some have been empty for four years. About £4·5 million in rental income has been lost in the past 12 months. That is bad management and of little service to the public.
In my authority of Sefton, which covers Southport, services to the holiday and shopping industries have been affected by a north-south war. In 1974 Bootle was lumped with Southport, Crosby and Formby as part of an unnatural local government reorganisation which we described at the time as gerrymandering and which has been referred to in similar terms since. Communities as different as chalk and cheese were unsatisfactorily lumped together. Since then, for 17 years, the people of Southport have been making their views known to the Boundary Commission. Polls have consistently shown that between 92 and 97 per cent. of local people want to be part of Lancashire. Recently 11,000 of them wrote individual letters to the Boundary Commission which had initially acted favourably, reflecting the wishes of the people in the first provision of the Local Government Act 1974. However, the commission now appears to have turned a double somersault and stated that the borough of Southport should remain part of Sefton. It appears to the people of Southport that the Boundary Commission has become political. I hope that that is not the case. Many say that the boot has been put in as a result of interventions from a higher authority. Again, I hope that that is not the case and that the Boundary Commission, which has worked well in the past, will continue to do so in the future. The wishes of the people must always be adhered to in the provision of local government services.
Liberal Democrats perform well when they get into local government. Having gained 520 seats at the last local elections—more than was gained by any other party—many more councils are now controlled by Liberal Democrats. Councils are big spenders of public money and are often the largest employer in an area. They have

statutory duties and powers relating to a large number of services, many of which have a direct environmental impact. Councils can also be opinion formers and pace-setters for the area's community and businesses—not least as a result of their purchasing policies and publicity facilities. Liberal Democrats believe that the protection of the world environment must be a major priority at every level of government. That priority must be reflected in political and economic action at every level in society. It follows that, where feasible, we want local authorities, through the provision of their own services, to take action to protect the environment. Councils can bring direct influence to bear on those who might otherwise damage the environment and can raise the consciousness of the population that they serve.
Local government can provide recycling services. About 80 per cent. of household rubbish could be used again. Throwing it away is a total waste of all the energy and raw materials that went into producing it, yet only 1 per cent. of Britain's annual 43 million tonnes of household waste is recycled. Liberal Democrat councillors have long argued for recycling schemes. Where we hold power, that lobbying turns into action. Adur district council has introduced a door-to-door kerbside collection service for recyclable materials.
Local authorities should also provide nature conservancy services. Our minority administration on Colchester borough council has taken several initiatives to conserve the environment and has purchased a large landholding, Lemton lodge farm, to protect it from development threats and to open it up to the public. Adur and Somerset district councils have full programmes to ensure the protection and conservation of the environment.

Mr. Nicholls: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to remind the House that when the Liberals were briefly in control of Devon county council, they planned to recycle the county's remaining grammar schools by abolishing them because that was the price that the Labour party demanded for keeping the Liberals in power. Had the hon. Gentleman intended to mention that bit of recycling?

Mr. Fearn: I do not believe that that enters into recycling.
Concern about the side effects of pesticides has already galvanised Liberal Democrats on South Somerset district council, who have adopted comprehensive nature conservancy strategies, banned the use of many pesticides and substituted safer management methods. Purchasing policies should be geared to the service of consumers. There again, Liberal Democrat groups have successfully proposed environmentally sensitive purchasing policies.
Adur has banned the purchase of aerosols with CFCs and has called on manufacturers to label their products so that consumers can make informed purchases. Swale borough council is implementing lead-free petrol policies.
Britain lags behind its European neighbours when it comes to greening and protecting residential areas in towns and cities from fast rat-running traffic.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): That is a bit rich. It is bunkum to think that it is only tightly knit groups of politically motivated Liberal Democrats who are interested in recycling, conservation, environmental good practice and the protection of the environment. It would be just as reasonable for the Labour party to suggest that


it is doing the same or for me to suggest that Conservative groups are. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that none of those Liberal cliques would be able to make such claims if it were not for the introduction of legislation by the Conservative Government on vital matters, notably the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Mr. Fearn: I would like to agree with the Minister. Perhaps as the debate continues many instances will be given of Conservative councils that are doing that. I have been a member of a council for 25 years and I still am. We had a tough time in the earlier years as there were only three of us, but during that time we suggested using recycling methods and policies that would not harm the environment. The Conservatives suggested nothing.
I used to go round the country 25 years ago, and I never found Conservative groups suggesting anything of the sort, apart from in rural areas where people spoke about hedgerows, even in those days. I never heard anything until seven or eight years ago, when the Greens made us start thinking about the environment and it became fashionable.

Mr. Holt: On the subject of the environment and the Liberal Democrats, I have been a member of the Select Committee on the Environment for six years. There is no Liberal Democrat on that Committee because of the way that this place works, but neither has a Liberal Democrat ever sat in on a meeting or submitted a paper. No Liberal Democrat has ever expressed agreement or disagreement with our reports. In the House, the Liberal Democrats take no interest in the environment unless it is for cheap popular political reasons.

Mr. Fearn: I cannot believe that. A document called "Shared Earth" was submitted to the Committee and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not read it.
I am not saying that Conservative councils will not jump on the band wagon and introduce such measures—

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fearn: I have given way eight times, which is a lot for such a debate. There are not many of us on this side of the House today—[Interruption.] I am a great percentage of our party here today.
I am talking about customer services. I am not haranguing or criticising too much, although certainly some criticism must be levelled at Liverpool. We have always been a party of action rather than words. We stand for value for money and for service. The best thing that could happen to the proud city of Liverpool is for the sensible and friendly people of Walton to give both Labour parties a boot up the arse and elect a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament.

Mr. Barry Porter: I do not think that I am capable of following the witty rhetoric arid the vulgarity of the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn), and I have no intention of so doing.

Mr. Fearn: The hon. Gentleman speaks of vulgarity, but I looked in the dictionary to find that that was a good old English word.

Mr. Porter: The fact that it is old fashioned does not make it any the less vulgar.
I am not here to take part in the Walton by-election and I am definitely not here to indulge in a Liverpool-bashing expedition. I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) with some interest. One of our troubles is that the people of Liverpool—as shown in the leader in the Liverpool Daily Post—rightly or wrongly take exception to people from Dagenham, Stroud and other places, who have probably never been to Liverpool, thinking that Liverpool is a sort of Albania of the north. It is not.
I am not criticising, as they obviously have other things to do, but I am sorry that some of the Liverpool Members of Parliament are not here today. I was born on Merseyside, I have a family there, and have worked there as a solicitor and am not unknown in the courts of Liverpool—as an advocate, I hasten to add. I have had a ringside seat of what has been happening in the past decade. I have watched the fight for the soul of Liverpool and I do not like what I have seen any more than anyone else. As a Merseysider, and as someone with relations who earn their living in the city of Liverpool, I have a right to try to set the record straight, as far as I can and as a friend of Liverpool.
Every city has its difficulties. Liverpool has geographical problems—it is on the wrong side of the country because patterns of trade have changed. Corn and cotton have gone and the port has had to be reduced in size. The population has reduced. I wonder why Liverpool has gained its reputation when Glasgow, which has suffered equal geographical historical difficulties and has suffered the decline of its basic industries, does not have the same reputation and is called the "city of culture". Glasgow pulled itself up by its own bootstraps, largely under a Labout administration, and the man who led that renaissance was Provost Kelly. If Glasgow and other cities that have faced decline could do it, why not Liverpool? That is why I have to make this attack, because the blame for what has happened to Liverpool in the past decade lies with the politicians who are purported to lead that city.
The first political statement that I made was at school when Mrs. Eilzabeth Braddock, the then Labour Member of Parliament for the Exchange Division of Liverpool, came to lecture the sixth form. I offered the vote of thanks and I remember saying that I trusted that she would remain as a Member of Parliament and a member of the Opposition for many years to come—I was right about that. I wish that Elizabeth Braddock and her like were in Liverpool now, but they are not.
One only had to look at the leader of the Liverpool council on television the other night—he was in tears. He is the alleged moderate. I felt sorry for him. However, it is fair to say that he and those who follow him have connived in doing little to stop the hard left, the broad left or the narrow left, or whatever one wants to call it. Such labels mean nothing to me and are part of a parlour game played by people of socialist inclination. The people out there do not care what faction one belongs to or even what they are or what they do. They are interested in a clean city, a city with decent schools and a city which is prudently run. Sadly, in the past 10 years, none of those aims has been achieved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud referred to the breast-beating of councillor Keva Coombes. I do not propose to repeat that, but, to encapsulate what Coombes said, it was simply, "We failed."
I do not mind people failing if they have tried to the best of their ability and worked hard with great honesty, but, no, it was not like that. They did not try. They did not want to succeed. They wanted confrontation, not just within the city, but with the Government of whom they disapproved. The way to achieve that was to make the city ungovernable.
People thought like that and, sadly, still think like that. If any Labour Member thinks that Militant will fold up its tent and steal away into the night, think again because it will not. I know, because we have heard some windy rhetoric about it, that the Labour leadership wishes to see such people out of the Labour party. Think again. It will not be so easy. Besides, I am not entirely certain that every Labour Member wishes that to be the case.

Mr. Favell: My hon. Friend is making a most interesting speech. As so many Members wish to speak, I do not expect to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I intervene briefly. I, too, represent a seat which is on the Mersey and is about 30 miles from Liverpool. When the people of Stockport look at Liverpool, they wonder whether those living there realise what an appalling advertisement for Liverpool the council is. Industrialists are deterred from investing in it by what they read in the newspapers and watch on television. I know the Liverpool people. Recently I visited Halewood and was impressed at what was going on there, but many people do not know. The people of Liverpool should realise that their councillors are the worst possible advertisement for that city which was once great.
Every year I used to go to the Isle of Man for my family holidays and I used to see the port of Liverpool full of great ships. At that time it vied with Manchester. It was a great thrill for me and part of the holiday to go there. Now Liverpool is notorious purely as a result of the activities of its appalling left-wing council.

Mr. Porter: If that was a question, I think that the answer is yes. Clearly, there is a problem with inward investment in Liverpool, but we should not overstate it. The politicians there have the effect that my hon. Friend described, but it is not something which cannot be overcome. It will be overcome. There are still major industries in Liverpool. There is Littlewoods. Royal Insurance has its head office there and will not move. General Motors is investing a further £200 million. There is the Tate gallery of the north and the Albert dock. If hon. Members have a moment, they should pause at the Albert dock, which is absolutely marvellous. Why is it there? Because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, in a previous incarnation, went there and started the Merseyside development corporation. What is the advantage of the MDC? It does not have to bother with the council which has let Liverpool down.
Liverpool is there for all to see. It is not a once great city; it is a great city. It is a city of humour. I assure the hon. Member for Southport that Liverpool is environmentally aware. It has more lead-free churches than anywhere else in the kingdom. That is the sort of self-deprecating joke which people on Merseyside make about themselves. What is a scouser with a collar and tie called? Answer: the defendant. What is a scouser in a four-bedroomed, detached house called? Answer: a

burglar. The people of Liverpool make jokes like that about themselves. I like that. They are not pompous people. They are willing to work. When I hear attacks on the city close to which I was born, I do not like it because the vast majority of its people do not bear out the view that some people in the rest of the country have of them.
Over the past years the people of Liverpool have chosen to elect the sort of representatives that I have described. They are now beginning to realise that that was an error. Obviously, I think and hope that the Conservative party's fortunes will revive there. We have put money into that city; we have not abandoned it. Conservative principles will work in a place like Liverpool.
I represent part of the Wirral, two miles over the river. This year, slightly to my surprise, there was a swing on the Wirral in favour of the Conservative party. We gained seats and defeated the local leader of the Labour party. Why? Because our campaign was based on the question, "Do you want Liverpool over here?" We did not mean the city, but the politicians. The answer was and is a resounding, no, we do not want such people running our local authority.
It is for the people of Liverpool now to determine what sort of city they want. Do they want a city where the streets are swept and the schools are good, and of which they can be proud? If they do, it is available for the taking, but never while the men that I have described still run the local Labour party. Mistake me not, they think that they are the Labour party, they will remain in the Labour party, whether Walworth road or the national executive council says so, their spirit is in the Labour party, they have to an extent taken it over and they will not go away. It would be the leaving of Liverpool if those men were allowed to continue.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The introductory speech of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) was astonishing. It was supposed to deal with the problems of local government, yet he deliberately avoided the whole problem of local government finance. He mentioned it only in passing to claim that the financial position facing local authorities was in some way irrelevant. Liverpool has been hit as much as any authority by the financial game that the Government have been playing since 1979.
It was my privilege to address a meeting together with the former hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton, Eric Heifer, whom we wish was here today to take part in the debate and share with us his vast experience and understanding of Liverpool. The meeting was to consider what was to be done in the light of the assault on local government. The tactics of that assault were being set out as early as 1979 and were followed by continuing cuts in grants, fiddles in standard spending assessments and the poll tax, which the hon. Member for Stroud managed not to mention. He can claim that he did not vote for the legislation on Second Reading because he happened to get himself into the wrong Lobby. He was locked in, and there were points of order about the fact that he was stuck in the No Lobby when he wanted to be in the Aye Lobby. His speech today revealed that his confusion on that occasion is continuing.

Mr. Knapman: Will the hon. Gentleman re-examine the matter? The confusion must be with him, because that incident certainly did not involve me.

Mr. Barnes: If it was not the hon. Gentleman, I certainly apologise, but my understanding is that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) raised a point of order and said that the hon. Member for Stroud was locked in the No Lobby, hiding behind the curtains and could not be persuaded to come out. He added that it would be a long time before his release. It may have been one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues.

Mr. Knapman: It was one of my colleagues, but modesty forbids me to say which one; it was not me. The hon. Gentleman's research is not what it might be. If he cannot get that right, what on earth can he get right? I look forward to his apology.
Incidentally, will the hon. Gentleman ask his Front-Bench spokesman to cover the point about Lloyd's because Labour's resident expert is here to speak for himself? If the hon. Gentleman wants a copy of that excellent speech, I am sure that the author will be happy to oblige.

Mr. Barnes: I apologise if I referred wrongly to the hon. Member for Stroud. My confusion was caused by the presence on the Government Benches of a host of Thatcherite clones. I confused the hon. Gentleman with whichever clone happened to get locked in the No Lobby. Clearly, the whole issue of the poll tax must be considered as part of this debate, and the hon. Member for Stroud avoided referring to it as having caused difficulties for the operation of local government services.

It being Eleven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 ( Friday sittings).

Chieftain Tank Replacement

11 am

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the replacement of the Chieftain tank.
In his statement to this House on 20 December 1988, the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), announced the Government's intention to replace the Chieftain with a new tank. The Challenger 2 tank being developed by Vickers was to be given the opportunity over the next two years to demonstrate that it could meet three demanding milestones.
At the same time, my Department has conducted an extremely thorough assessment of three other contenders —an improved version of the United States Abrams tank, manufactured by General Dynamics; an improved version of the German Leopard 2, manufactured by Krauss Maffei; and the French Leclerc tank manufactured by GIAT. That work has been greatly helped by the full assistance we have had from the companies concerned and their Governments.
In reaching our decision, we have had to take into account a wide range of factors, many of which did not apply two and a half years ago. Chief among those is the major political and military transformation within Europe which will mean that, by the mid-1990s, over 30,000 fewer tanks will be ranged against NATO in Europe. That has led to our study of "Options for Change" and allows us to make significant reductions in the size of our tank fleet.
But the main battle tank remains at the cutting edge of a modern army and, without it, high intensity conflict would be impossible. Indeed, the Gulf war demonstrated the continuing importance of the tank in the land battle.
A decision of this magnitude requires a wide range of factors to be carefully weighed and taken into account. Our appraisal has now been completed. We have reviewed the progress of the Challenger 2 programme, in which Vickers Defence Systems has achieved all the performance criteria, known as milestones. We have also assessed the competing claims of the Leopard, Abrams and Leclerc tanks.
I can inform the House that, subject to the negotiation of satisfactory contract terms, we have decided to go ahead with the Chieftain replacement programme and to place the order for the new battle tank to replace Chieftain with Vickers for Challenger 2.
In making the choice of the new tank, an important consideration has been the advantage of maintaining a single ammunition type without the smaller fleet. In addition to this order for Challenger 2, and taking into account the lessons of the Gulf war, we intend to proceed with a substantial upgrade programme for the Challenger 1 fleet. In particular, this programme will significantly increase the firepower of the Challenger 1 fleet by the fitting of a new and more powerful gun.
As a result of the acquisition of Challenger 2 and the enhancement of Challenger 1, the British Army's tank fleet will be well placed to meet its new commitments, both within NATO's Rapid Reaction Corps and elsewhere.
The choice of Challenger 2 testifies to the skills and capabilities of British industry and will deservedly ensure jobs at VDS and its sub-contractors. It is an excellent tank and likely to command close attention among our friends


and allies. I am confident that it is exceptionally well placed to compete in the important overseas markets where there are genuine defence needs.
This announcement carries forward the process announced by my right hon. Friend in July last year. As he then made clear, our aim is to achieve smaller but better forces. The Government are determined to ensure that our armed services receive the equipment that they need to do the job. This decision is an important step in that direction. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: I thank the Minister for that long-awaited but somewhat thin statement. The whole House will welcome this vindication of British technology and skill. While we understand why the right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned the price of the new tank or the cost of retrofitting the existing tanks, will he reveal the size of the order, at what rate the tanks will be purchased and over how long the contract is expected to run? Will he confirm the number of Challenger 1 tanks that are likely to be retrofitted?
While I do not wish to carp unduly this morning, I should tell the House that yesterday afternoon, during business questions, at about 4.30, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) asked the Leader of the House whether there would be a statement about this matter. He was told that a statement would be made before the end of the month.
It would appear that a number of Conservative Members have not been detained by legitimate constituency business, as have been my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Sir P. Duffy), for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther), for Leeds, Central, and for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), all of whom have played an active part in campaigning on a cross-party basis to secure the order for Vickers.
It is extremely regrettable that the courtesy that was shown to me late last night—and clearly was extended to Conservative Members—was not extended to the House as a whole. That has meant that some of my hon. Friends are not present today to welcome the order and to give it the sort of support that they have shown since December 1988, when the statement was first made about the milestone procedures. I must make that point because, while I welcome the order, I regret the somewhat unparliamentary way with which the matter has been dealt.

Mr. Clark: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. I apologise to him and the House for the fact that the statement is being made on a Friday. The House will appreciate when I explain that negotiations with the company were completed only late yesterday afternoon, so this is the first opportunity I have to disclose the matter to hon. Members.
This has been for many months the subject of widespread concern and comment, inside and outside the House and in the press. Much of that comment has not been well informed, so I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that, had we left the matter over the weekend, the likelihood of leaks, uncertainties and comment,

inaccurate or mischievous, would have multiplied. For that reason, I felt it appropriate to come to the House immediately to make a statement.
It is our intention to re-equip completely two regiments of Chieftains. We believe that after the Options arrangements are fully in place, there will remain two regiments of Chieftains. They will be replaced with the new tank. The numbers in this contract will be up to about 130, which is larger than required to equip two regiments but includes tanks for training and logistical support.
The number of Challenger 1 tanks to be retrofitted under the improvement programme will depend on how many Challenger 1 tanks remain in service under the finalisation of the Options arrangements, but it is our intention that every Challenger 1 remaining in service should be retrofitted.

Mr. Neville Trotter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is great news not only for the British Army but for the north-east, with thousands of jobs being secured? Can he confirm that Vickers won the order on merit against great international competition? Does he accept that great credit is due to the Vickers work force for their achievements in connection with the Gulf and in bringing this design to a successful fruition?
I know that the work force would want me to thank hon. Members on both sides of the House who helped them. I particularly pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) and for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), who have been gagged in public by serving as Whips. They have helped enormously behind the scenes in putting our case.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this vote of confidence by the British Army should help to pave the way for export orders and further job opportunities in our region?

Mr. Clark: I echo my hon. Friend's tribute to colleagues who have worked behind the scenes and spoken on this subject on the Floor of the House. As my hon. Friend says, although my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) must, technically, remain silent in the Chamber, he has played a significant part in concentrating our minds on this issue.
Every tribute should be paid to the work force, especially for its help to the 1st Division in the Gulf. It provided thorough, continuous and effective maintenance of the Challenger 1 tanks, which enabled them to perform so effectively throughout the war. That performance augurs well for the quality of workmanship that we expect to find in the new tank.

Mr. Stanley Orme: We welcome the Minister's statement, as to the trade unions that have been involved in the campaign, including my union—the Amalgamated Engineering Union—the Transport and General Workers Union, Manufacturing Science Finance and many other unions concerned about employment in the two main companies in Leeds and Newcastle and the subsidiary companies that supply other components for the vehicle.
We accept that we must have such weapons, but it is essential that we buy British. The Government have taken long enough, but we welcome their decision. Will the orders be sufficient to maintain employment at both the major plants and in the subsidiary companies involved?

Mr. Clark: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's support. The House will be pleased that our decision has resulted in buying British. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we took into consideration a wide number of factors, of which the maintenance of an indigenous tank production capability was only one. It took a long time to weigh those factors carefully, but that passage of time allowed us to make a thorough examination of all the factors. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on work loading in the factories. However, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, York university carried out a study and attached a figure of 2,400 jobs to the order.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his important statement is good news for Britain, Britain's technology, our famous armoured regiments and the soldiers who may one day be required to take these sophisticated tanks into action? What will my right hon. Friend do to encourage our embassies and military attachés abroad to ensure that the tank is widely perceived by the world tank market as a desirable purchase?

Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. A number of countries among our friends and allies are considering re-equipping their armed forces, particularly in the light of the lessons of the recent conflict. As I said in my statement, Challenger 2 is excellently placed to take advantage of that demand, subject to the appropriate scrutinies of the supply of heavy armaments to countries overseas. Although our embassies and posts abroad require no urging from me, they will know about what has been said in this place.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn:: Although I welcome the decision in favour of Vickers, especially the sub-contractors who have been anxious about this order, will the Minister say whether the export market will be considered by Vickers—he said that there will be fewer than 200 tanks—and, if so, will the Ministry of Defence have an input into that decision and into deciding where the tanks will go?

Mr. Clark: Of course. All exports of arms are subject to detailed scrutiny by ourselves, the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry. That would always be a factor in determining whether a sale could be allowed. We are well aware of a considerable demand for new armour from many countries that we regard as friends and allies.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: My right hon. Friend will remember that I wrote to him on behalf of my constituents who work for the steel makers, F.H. Lloyds of Burton-on-Trent. May I convey to him their thanks for the decision? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is good news not only because we are buying British but because we are buying the best in the world? That augurs well for the engineering and metal-bashing industries of the midlands and the rest of the country.

Mr. Clark: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. She wrote to me in persuasive terms, and I am sorry that I could not at that time give her a fuller assurance than the stage of our negotiations allowed. My hon. Friend's points are valid, and I hope that the order will give a considerable boost, not only to direct

employment—including employment for the sub-contractors—but in illustrating and enhancing the prestige of the closely-related trades in metal working and high technology.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: In deciding the contract, did the right hon. Gentleman discuss with his colleagues the number of Challenger tanks that were left to rust at the end of the Gulf war? Has he read the report that, of the 157 Challenger tanks, the vast majority were inoperable because, as a senior officer said, there was vandalism by neglect? As a result, the repair bill ran into tens of millions of pounds.
Will the Minister comment on the fact that the Germans offered to loan 130 Leopard 2 tanks to replace the defective Challengers only on the basis that they would receive the contract that he has just announced? Yet the Germans call themselves allies.
Will the Minister accept that some of us believe that the decision was delayed unduly because the Tories thought that there would be a June election and somebody else would have got the contract?

Mr. Clark: I am always delighted to see the hon. Gentleman in his place and I pay tribute to the fact that he is such an assiduous attender, even on Fridays. On an occasion such as this, when the entire House welcomes the Government's decision, I looked to the hon. Gentleman to supply a note of discord and I was not disappointed.
I am well aware of the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It is entirely groundless—there is no truth in it whatsoever—and was published in one provincial paper. The national papers that inquired into the issue were rapidly disillusioned, as there is no substance in the allegation or the figure that the lion. Gentleman quoted.
The German's offer to loan Leopard 2 was unrelated to the alleged deficiencies in the remaining Challenger I fleet. It was a move in the contractual negotiations and was carefully considered, as was every aspect of all offers and every detail in a long and complicated series of negotiations with several different suppliers. However, we reached our conclusion having weighed all the factors.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I thank my right hon. Friend for his wise decision and the goods news that it will bring for jobs in Burton-on-Trent, particularly at F. H. Lloyds already referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). I appreciate the care with which my right hon. Friend made the decision. It is all too easy to be chauvinistic for chauvinism's sake. I appreciate that he had a difficult decision to make and made it as a result of the particularly good technology that has been put into those tanks. This will also help to boost the morale of our troops if they ever have to go into battle again because they will know that they are riding proudly on a British product.

Mr. Clark: Certainly the Government will always ensure that, if our service men have to go into battle, they have the best equipment available. I am confident that, in this case, we have made the right decision. However, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said, a large number of factors had to be taken into account, including technical merit, risk, contract conditions, time scale, cost, the balance of inter-operability considerations, stretch potential, logistical


implications, employment and overseas sales. It takes considerable time to equate all those differing factors and place them in the context of the operational lessons that we learnt in the Gulf war. I am entirely satisfied that we have come to the right conclusion.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is it a complete coincidence that this important announcement was timed to take place at just about the same time as the victory parade for the Gulf, despite the fact that, when the Leader of the House was asked yesterday when the announcement was to be made, he could not tell us? Surely the Minister would not expect us to believe that the information was not very much in the mind of the Leader of the House yesterday.
Obviously, because of the job implications, I welcome the statement, but why does it appear that British industry is capable of leading the world in producing the arms of death and destruction, but is bottom of the league when it comes to consumer goods, machine tools, computers and motor vehicles?

Mr. Clark: I completely reject the allegations with which the hon. Gentleman concluded his question, which offered a good example of the insatiable appetite of some Opposition Members to welcome bad news, talk down British achievements and try to attach an unhappy side to anything.
On the hon. Gentleman's main question, yes, the timing of the announcement is a complete coincidence. As I have explained, we were in negotiations until late yesterday afternoon. If we had not been, I would have attended the parade myself.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: On behalf of everyone in Leeds who campaigned for the Challenger tank, may I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for the decision announced today, both in respect of the order for the new Challenger 2 and the upgrading of Challenger 1, which vindicates the view that we have produced the best tank in the world—an opinion which the campaigners have expressed from the beginning.
This project opens the way for significant exports to secure the future of the Leeds and Newcastle factories. Is it not clear that the only threat that remains to the future of the factories is the prospect of a Labour Government, committed to further deep defence cuts in order to fund their profligate expenditure on other programmes?

Mr. Clark: I welcome what my hon. Friend said, and I should like to single him out as one of the most energetic and tireless advocates in helping us to reach the right decision.
Yes, it is perfectly true that many Labour Members are quick to complain about cancellations and redundancies in the defence sphere, when they think that they can protest with impunity, but when they hear of substantial defence orders they tend to stay away or avoid the subject—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not true."] It is not true of the hon. Members now present, but we have heard examples of such behaviour. If Opposition Members are honest with themselves, they will know that what I say is true and applies to many of their colleagues. However, I certainly exclude those hon. Members who have spoken in support of today's announcement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) is entirely right to say that the decision reflects great credit on the factories involved, and will enhance their prestige and substantially improve their overseas sales prospects.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this morning's tremendous news is a vindication of the beliefs of all those who have always maintained that British is best, and who now have the proof of it? Can he confirm that the decision announced today was largely brought about by the work of the many defence sub-contractors in constituencies across the country, including my own, Swindon, and the efforts put in by the contractors' employees during the recent Gulf war?

Mr. Clark: Yes, the sub-contractors have played an important part in contributing to the specification which has won the competition and led to our decision. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) raised the issue because I always welcome an opportunity to pay tribute to the tireless work of a number of sub-contractors during the Gulf war, when they worked continuous overtime, seven days a week, in many cases during the Christmas holiday. That was a good example of the resources and quality from which we can draw in crisis from our widespread, and exceptionally skilful and diverse sub-contracting industry.

Mr. Richard Holt: May I join other hon. Members with constituencies in the north-east in congratulating my right hon. Friend? I am sure that what he has done today will bring great encouragement for jobs and industries in the region. Now that my right hon. Friend will have some spare time on his hands, will he lend some assistance to his junior colleague, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, who is having great difficulty in announcing a date when the Ministry of Defence quality assurance directorate will move to the north-east of England, as his predecessor, now the Minister for Trade, promised nearly two years ago?

Mr. Clark: I did not expect to hear the closing passages of my hon. Friend's question. I shall refer the subject to my colleague, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) will appreciate that, as someone with responsibility for procurement, the subject is not one on which I would wish to make an off-the-cuff comment. I know that he is greatly concerned about the issue, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will read the report of this statement to which I shall personally refer him.

Mr. Alan Williams: The Minister will know that the announcement that the order is to be placed with British industry is welcome to the Opposition, especially those of my hon. Friends who campaigned for months and years to achieve the order. However, as a matter of parliamentary courtesy, will the Minister state whether, after the decision was made last night or when it was realised that a decision was to be arrived at, his office or his Whips' Office contacted Conservative Members who might have an interest in the announcement? If that was done, were Opposition Members similarly alerted to the fact that the announcement was to be made today?

Mr. Clark: I cannot answer for my colleagues in the Whips' Office, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman


that, as soon as the decision was confirmed, we were at pains to advise the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill). Any other arrangements that may have been made were outside my control or knowledge.

Mr. Neil Thorne: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on making this important announcement as soon as he could. I know that my colleagues on the Select Committee on Defence will be disappointed not to be here today. Some of them are participating in the Gulf parade and others, like me, were not informed about the announcement this morning. I can assure the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) that Conservative Members were not asked to be here today. I did not know about the announcement until I saw it on the annunciator and came straight to the House. As a member of the Select Committee on Defence, I should have thought that I would be one of the first to be informed by the Whips if they were notifying Government Members.
I am sure that my colleagues would want to say how delighted they were at the announcement and, probably, would also want to ask how large a part experiences in the Gulf played in the decision-making process. I am sure that the way in which Challenger 1 performed in the Gulf had a profound effect on the decision taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister. He mentioned that Challenger 1 was to have a new gun designed for it. Will he confirm that that gun will use British ammunition? One of the annoyances of the Gulf conflict was to find that, when we looked for extra supplies of ammunition which were to come from another country in the Common Market, our soldiers were deprived of the ammunition due to some political decision taken by the Belgians. We do not want that to happen again. Will my right hon. Friend, therefore, please confirm that any weapon that is mounted on Challenger 2 will have British ammunition supplied to it?

Mr. Clark: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having returned to this important point, to which I referred in my statement. The intraoperability of ammunition was at the forefront of the factors that we considered in coming to our decision. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend for his swift retort and effective repudiation of the accusations levelled against this side of the House by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). My hon. Friend is a colleague whose opinion and expertise I value greatly. Although he is a member of the Defence Select Committee, he told us that he had not been advised that a statement was to be made and that, simply because he is a regular attender on Fridays and saw on the annunciator that a statement was to be made, he came to the Chamber.

Mr. William O'Brien: I welcome the decision to place an order for the Challenger 2 tank. A

number of my constituents work in the industry. However, will the Minister of State say how many tanks will be delivered to the forces each year? That will have a significant bearing on the length of employment in the industry.
I am sure that next week we shall experience the wrath of Members of Parliament in my area, especially those with Leeds constituencies, who have been pressing all this week for information. It is sad to think that, after trying all week to obtain it, they have been denied the opportunity to make a contribution today. The Secretary of State for Defence will, rightly, have to reply to questions that were put to him. Regardless of what Conservative Members may say, the Labour party has been fully behind the programme to acquire the Challenger 2 tank for the United Kingdom services. It is very disappointing, therefore, that those who have a keen interest in the matter have not been allowed to make a contribution on this statement.

Mr. Clark: I have already apologised to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) for any apparent discourtesy on this subject. I ask the hon. Gentleman to appreciate that this has been an extremely sensitive topic in market terms. If there had been any authoritative leak or communication that might have led to the recipient knowing what had been decided, there would have been an immediate reaction on the stock market—either way. Companies that were not going to get the order might have suffered weakness in the value of their equity, while those that were going to get it might have suffered a run of speculative buying. The decision, therefore, had to be closely protected. We could only say that the matter had been conclusively decided at a very late stage yesterday afternoon.
I am not responsible for, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on, the Opposition's internal arrangements for alerting the hon. Gentleman's colleagues, or putting his colleagues on notice of the possibility of a statement relating to their constituencies being made. It is desirable, as far as possible, to do that, but such discourtesies as may be thought to have occurred were unintended and related to the need for absolute secrecy until the very last moment. Once the decision has been made—again to prevent speculation and uninformed comment of various kinds—it was thought right that a statement should be made to the House immediately.
As to the delivery rate of Challenger 2 tanks each year, we anticipate up to about 40. As I told the hon. Member for Clackmannan, we intend to re-equip two Chieftain regiments. That will involve a total buy of up to about 130, including training tanks and logistic support vehicles.

Local Government Services

Question again proposed.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The motion relates to the delivery of local government services and the inadequacy of those services. The point that I was making was that we cannot discuss those issues unless we discuss local government finance—the grant system, the formulas used in determining those grants and the problems that local authorities face in raising money, due to the poll tax which has seriously affected their revenue.
The poll tax is still with us. Legislation is going through Parliament to deal with its latest consequence, which will be to poll-tax-cap the smaller authorities—those with budgets of under £15 million. The poll tax was, and is, the unfairest taxation system that has ever been introduced into any western democratic system at any time. It is a flat-rate tax, apart from the exemption of certain people, but no decent principle has been devised to decide who should and who should not be exempt. Apart from the rebate system, everybody pays the same, which leads to massive savings for the wealthier people in our society. That bill has to be picked up by others, including many of those who have rebates. That was bound to have a devastating effect on local government in terms of the services that it is able to provide.
The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys has just published statistics showing that one of the consequences of the poll tax as it affects local authorities is the collapse, by about 1 million, in the number of people on the electoral register. The impact of that collapse has nowhere been more serious than in Liverpool. At one period, 10 per cent. of Liverpool's electorate disappeared from the electoral register. Only slowly, through the operation of the poll tax and the interlinking of the two registers, have some of those people reappeared on the register during the last two years, but there is still a collapse of 6 or 7 per cent. in Liverpool's electorate.
That also means a collapse in the number of potential poll tax payers. Apart from its problems over collecting the poll tax, because many people cannot pay it, Liverpool does not have, as a result of the Government's legislation, correct information about the number of people to whom it ought to send poll tax demands. That problem is repeated throughout the country.

Mrs. Currie: The hon. Gentleman is one of my neighbours in Derbyshire. Bearing in mind what he says about people who cannot pay and also what he says about people who have removed themselves from the register, does he think that it was wise to encourage and set an example to people who could pay the poll tax by not paying it himself?

Mr. Barnes: I am happy to discuss why, for a period, I did not pay my poll tax bill. As a Member of Parliament, I believed that I had a duty not to pay it because of the points that I have just made about it being a contitutionally odd measure that attacks the operation of the electoral system—something that the House seems not to be concerned about. I never asked other people not to pay the poll tax. I said that however poor or desperate people were, they could be put to an even worse position by the draconian measures included in the Bill.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: rose—

Mr. Barnes: I shall give way in a moment.
I wanted first to go to the magistrates court to use the argument of constitutional oddity in the operation of the poll tax. Unfortunately, it was so long before the case was brought before the court that we moved into the new financial year. I was then not subject—as I could have been —to the criticism that other people would then pay poll tax moneys on my behalf. I was in a genuine dilemma about the problem of electoral registration. [Laughter.] It is a disgrace that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) finds the matter humorous, as she is one of the people who has helped to inflict the problem on the nation and on the people of Derbyshire, when she is a massive gainer from each measure that is passed on the poll tax.

Mr. Arnold: What amount are the charge payers of Derbyshire, North-East having to pay this year because people such as the hon. Gentleman did not pay their charge last year, let alone this year?

Mr. Barnes: That does not relate to me because I paid the money to prevent that from happening. However, some people face that situation, through no fault of their own. Masses of people simply found themselves in great difficulty.
Reasonable estimates were made for nort-east Derbyshire about the number of people who would be able to pay. One hundred and two per cent.—the highest in the area—have paid. North-east Derbyshire is a decent, honest—[Laughter.] Hon. Members should listen. The estimates were of people who were going to pay, and those estimates were exceeded. In such circumstances, it is possible to have 102 per cent. The fact that Conservative Members are statistically ignorant does not mean that those figures are impossible.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is worth noting that the Labour party does not need lectures from Tory Members, 250 of whom moonlight in other jobs and who, because of the effects of the people at Lloyd's and elsewhere, come to this place only to feather their nests. Does my hon. Friend accept that thousands and millions of people wanted the poll tax killed, and it was killed because millions of people did not pay? The Conservatives passed an Act that provided them with a massive reduction in rates, but the British people would not wear it.
As a result of the efforts of those who refused to pay, poll tax mark 1 has been killed. Why are Tories now condemning people outside the House who refused to pay, when the Act for which they voted is now dead on the ground? The millions of people who refused to pay performed a public service in getting rid of a vile piece of legislation.

Mr. Barnes: The poll tax will have been defeated and removed by the massive opposition to it around the country. That opposition includes people who organised "don't pay" activities, the masses of people who would have paid if they could have done so, the people who demonstrated, marched and organised, and hon. Members who outlined an alternative position in the House.
That was reflected in the electoral system, despite the fact that the poll tax had been deliberately used to interfere with electoral registration. A million people have disappeared from the electoral register, but the trick has


not worked: people rumbled it. That has been shown in by-election results and in the action that has been taken throughout the country. Therefore, pressure activities and the processes of democracy have led to change, and that change has left devastation in its wake.
The Government must now face the problem of electoral registration. Are we to have an election next year with a million people missing from the electoral register? Does that not bother Members of the House which passed the great Reform Acts of the 19th century, and which extended the franchise and ensured that it should be the birthright of everyone over the age of 18 and not dependent upon one's position in society and upon one's wealth?
The franchise was undermined by the poll tax, which was constitutionally peculiar. Had I been given the opportunity in court, I should have used Dicey to prove that. The reason I did not was that, in politics, different issues must be balanced. One was the fact that the poll tax was on its way out and was beginning to be removed by the processes to which I referred.
Another issue was people's perceptions of the fact that their Member of Parliament would have had to have his poll tax paid by others who had been driven to pay it. That was a genuine consideration. The fact that one knuckles under does not mean that one accepts the measure. I was involved in the campaign to highlight the issues and to make changes. I am proud of the role I played, which contrasts sharply with that of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South, who has done nothing but feather her own nest through the operation of the different measures.
It is not only the tax that is important, but the amount of money that must be raised by local authorities. That meant that the poll tax became far higher than people had estimated. During debates on the poll tax in the House and in Committee, we were told that we should have a nice system under which 50 per cent. of the grant would come from central Government, that only 25 per cent. would have to be raised by local authorities and that 25 per cent. would come from the new national business rate. That system did not operate at any time, apart from in one or two luxurious authorities which managed to get that 50 per cent. Level—authorities such as Wandsworth and the city of Westminster, which had 57·8 per cent. before the £140 was knocked off some people's bills.
What is the position elsewhere? There is information in the Library, based on the answer to my written question of 5 December. It breaks down the percentages of different authorities into the money that came from revenue support grant and from the business rate and the amount of poll tax that was expected to be raised under the standard spending assessment. That was before people went above that level because they were driven by circumstances.
This is relevant to the Local Government Finance and Valuation Bill which is currently going through Parliament and on which the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South spoke on Second Reading. However, she managed not to mention the plight of South Derbyshire, which, under the standard spending assessment—based on the revenue support grant before the £140 is taken into account—receives only 13·5 per cent., not the supposed 50 per cent. Most authorities in Derbyshire are in the same difficult position.
The areas in north-east Derbyshire which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover represent receive merely

11·3 per cent. Only 20 authorities receive less money. I know that somebody has to be bottom of the league table. However in my area, the social deprivation, the loss of jobs and the services that need to be provided by the local authority to compensate for that and to provide growth and stimulation make that figure ridiculous.
The standard spending assessment per poll tax payer in North-East Derbyshire makes that authority the second worst-off out of 336 authorities in England and Wales. The worst-off authority is East Dorset. It is a solid Tory area and has all the middle-class characteristics that go with that. It has less need of funds than various areas in Derbyshire, such as Chesterfield borough. Together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), I cover part of that area. Other areas in Derbyshire that need funds are Bolsover and North-East Derbyshire. All those authorities are at the bottom of the list.
The reason for the position of those authorities is the fiddled formula. The Government are brilliant in the way in which they have managed to get through a nonsense formula—the standard spending assessment. There should be a public inquiry into that, before the amount of money that people are allowed to spend next year is worked out and before legislation goes through Parliament.
Early-day motion 1000 which has been tabled by me and some of my hon. Friends, points out the need for such an inquiry. It stresses the need for us to know quickly what the SSAs will be so that authorities can take action and the need for the removal of the poll tax. If the matter is investigated, the fiddle involved will be revealed.
How are district authorities such as South Derbyshire, North-East Derbyshire and Bolsover affected by the operation of the SSA? Three major items determine the money available. The first is the effective population. North-East Derbyshire and Bolsover are areas from which people have to move for employment. North-East Derbyshire is a C-shape around Chesterfield. People work in Chesterfield, move into the pits in the Bolsover and Chesterfield areas or go to Sheffield for work. The authorities in the area lose grant because of that. The shape and position of an authority determines the level of grant.
The density and sparsity of population comprise the second factor. A densely or sparsely populated authority may receive more grant if the grant is assessed ward by ward. North-East Derbyshire is a massive area the size of Malta and it has differing areas within it. When the areas are combined, they are not judged to be densely or sparsely populated. However, the area is difficult to get round. The district authority operates in Chesterfield at the centre of the C-shape, but outside the authority area, and many services have to be directed through Chesterfield and from one end of the authority to the other. Yet the authority loses grant when it should be gaining it. Bolsover is affected in a similar way because of the shape of the area and because of its closeness to other county boundaries.
Social characteristics also affect the money given. North-East Derbyshire fails to score on that criterion, because in rough and ready terms, the eastern section is solid working-class territory with some social deprivation, whereas the western part contains large elements of the middle class—rural and other. When the figures are combined, the area fails to score.
If the Minister has listened, he will understand the story, especially as I have put this argument to the House before. The matter must be investigated. In North-East


Derbyshire, we have a great deal of expertise about the operation of the standard spending assessment and about the problems that it causes for local government finance. I hope that we can meet at some stage to discuss that and that we can at least influence the Government to make a minimum of decent provision while we plough ahead with the vast injustices of the poll tax.
Liverpool has been discussed a great deal this morning. I mentioned that I visited Liverpool in the early 1980s and had the privilege to attend a meeting organised by the Labour Co-ordinating Committee, at which Eric Heller spoke. We were aware then of the assault of Thatcherism, how it would create further unemployment and devastation, and how local government especially would be hit. The issue of the time was not the poll tax but the cutting of grants. Something had to be done to fight that.
The Labour movement had a problem about how to engage in the fight. Some people adopted an adventurist position and wanted to get into the struggle immediately. I believed that they were in danger of being solidly defeated. Another group was more collaborationist. They believed that they should do the best they could and that they had not reached the stage when they should fight. I thought that a third position, which realised the strengths and weaknesses of the Labour movement, should be adopted. I believed that people should be willing to ask the adventurists to pull back and to say that those who favoured collaboration should push forward. If a threat had been made and a line of defence established, there would have been a chance of uniting the whole Labour movement, local authorities and others in defence against the assault.
The Government were clever. They advanced in monetarist areas in which they found it easy to advance, and they were careful in other areas. It was not until the mid-1980s that the major clash with the miners took place. On one occasion, I was in the House with a group of Yorkshire miners who had come to the House at the time of a pit closure programme. By the time that they got home, the pit closure programme had been dropped because the Government were not ready to tackle the miners, although they were ready to do so later.
It is only recently, although there has been some preparation, that the health service has been at the forefront of the struggle against the Government because of their trusts policy. The Government have engaged in a clever policy of going quickly when they can and for the rest of the time building up to a time when they can strike —or at least that was true until a couple of years ago when the tide began to turn. The tide is turning—

Mr. John Marshall: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This debate concerns local government services. We seem to be moving rather wide of the motion.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): That is a genuine point of order, although I must make the point that the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) has only just come into the Chamber and has not listened to what has gone before. Perhaps the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) will oblige me by returning to the motion.

Mr. Barnes: All the factors with which I have dealt and the whole programme in which the Government have engaged—their monetarism, their general economic policies and the privatisation programme—are directed to undermining working-class people. Part of their tactic was to hit local authorities and those who have struggled to defend working-class people—the trade union movement and the Labour party, including the Labour party in local authorities. People have now understood that. That is why the Government are on the way out and why we can now start the slow process of correcting mistakes made on local government finance and introducing a decent system of raising money based on people's ability to pay and on property.
We shall also be able to move to put right the devastation that the Government have inflicted on democracy by causing the removal of masses of people's names from the electoral register. It is astonishing that there is no movement in the Conservative party that is worried about the fact that 1 million people have disappeared from the register. If that had happened in the 19th century, there would at least have been one or two Tory radicals at the forefront of a movement to defend democracy. I have been defending democracy but the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South as not—nor has she defended South Derbyshire or said what grant it needs.

12 noon

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I found that a most enjoyable and engaging speech. I hope that it receives wide circulation and receives as much attention as possible. I have to say to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), speaking as one experienced politician to another, that I have rarely heard such bare-faced brazen check. It is quite extraordinary for someone who receives an income of more than £29,000 a year to stand up in the House and say with a straight face that he was justified in hanging on to his poll tax money for just a little longer. A Bill has gone through both Houses of Parliament and received Royal Assent—it is a law of the land. I regard it as quite extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman can say, "The charge is a constitutional oddity so if you don't mind I'll hang on to my superior earnings for just a little longer."

Mrs. Currie: Is my hon. Friend aware that the poll tax in Derbyshire last year was more than £450, which means that if the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) kept the money and put it in the bank or building society he will have ended the year about 50 quid better off?

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. The problem with being a socialist is that one has to earn at least £29,000 a year if one is to be able to afford to enjoy the luxury.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I should like to point out that, when I got round to paying my poll tax, Derbyshire county council had been poll tax capped, and there was a reduction of £52. I paid that extra £52 so any money that I may have earned in interest in the meantime was more than compensated for. I asked the district authority to transfer that money to the much-maligned Derbyshire county council. It was a minor amount, but it meant that there was nothing dishonourable in what I did.

Mr. Nicholls: The poor and huddled masses—the down-trodden and horny-handed proletariat—of the hon. Gentleman's constituency must have been delighted to hear that he could spare an extra £50 out of his £29,000 income to contribute to local government services. His was a most extraordinary performance. As I said, I hope that we shall he hearing a great deal more from the hon. Gentleman in future.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the extra £52 that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (M r. Barnes) paid over for the year will be as nothing compared with the £50 that someone on his income will have to pay over weekly if there is ever a Labour Government?

Mr. Nicholls: Yes, but we can give the hon. Gentleman some comfort. It may be a little while yet before he has to contemplate that idea. When the hon. Members for Derbyshire, North-East and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) pretend to champion the rights of the working classes, I sometimes wonder whether those so-called working classes realise just how well those hon. Members are paid in comparison.
Having allowed myself to be seduced for a moment by what the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East said, let me explain that I propose to deal principally with the question of local government finance. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) for framing his motion in such wide terms to enable us to discuss these matters. I have no doubt that, as we lead up to a general election, whenever that may be, the people of Britain will want to think more about local government matters and local government finance. The House owes it to them to give them every opportunity to consider the full range of options available. I know that the Minister will be seeking to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have written to him at some length suggesting one or two ways in which the banding arrangements for the council tax might be dealt with and about the discount. I do not want to go on at great length about those matters today and I certainly do not expect an especially detailed reply from my hon. Friend. I see that he is nodding. I am grateful that he has been thinking about the suggestions that I have made to him.
There is no ideal way of raising local government finance—or national finance, for that matter. No one likes parting with his money, especially the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East. But in an imperfect world we have to find a mechanism. Having had experience of these matters both inside and outside government, I have no doubt that the council tax is the best available way of raising the money that has to be raised locally. It will be even better if the Minister takes on board the points that I have made to him, but it is pretty good as it stands.
Ignoring all the details that might be put in place, the essential point about the council tax is that it acknowledges the fact that the share of finance that was expected to be raised locally was too large. It is when one strikes the right balance between central Government's contribution and what should be raised by local electors that a proper system begins to emerge. For the reasons that I have given, I have no doubt that the council tax achieves that balance.
I could go on at length about Labour's proposals. It seems that it is not only Labour Members who do not take

their policies on local government finance seriously. It is fairly clear to me from my postbag and from those whom I meet in my constituency that many people do not take them seriously either. That is hardly surprising given that we are talking about a pledge to return to the rating system, with rolling yearly valuations based on what would appear to be four sometimes contradictory methods of assessment. Even the Leader of the Opposition has described the rates as the most unfair of all taxes. To suggest a return to the rating system is simply not a credible alternative. I do not feel that I am doing the policy an injustice by merely mentioning it and dismissing it.
One of the other ideas about the way in which local government finance could be raised which receives a fair degree of attention and prominence is the idea of a local income tax. I waited in vain to hear from the Liberal Democrats—I see that the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) has now left us—about their local income tax proposals. One does not like to be unpleasant to colleagues on either side of the House, but I must say that if the hon. Gentleman's speech had ever managed to ascend the heights of grinding mediocrity it would have been an improvement. No matter how preposterous one's pretensions to office may be, one owes it to the House to advance a coherent argument and, even if it has been scripted for one by someone else, to read it with a degree of panache or aplomb. I was absolutely staggered—given the comments made nationally by the Liberal Democrats about how the local income tax is a solution to all our local government ills—to hear a speech that was so banal and pathetic. I should like to think that it is mere embarrassment that has driven the Liberal Democrat spokesman from the Chamber. I suspect that he just popped in and then had a train to catch. The House deserves more than that.
Although we do not have the benefit of the intellectual rigours and powers of analysis of the hon. Member for Southport, I have brought with me a document called "Local Income Tax—The Best Way—How it Works" produced by the Liberal Democrats. It contains the sparkling headline "Shaping Tomorrow—Starting Today". I shall quote just one or two sentences from the publication. Those hon. Members who, like me, do the football pools will recognise that the copywriter for the publication must have been the same person who writes for Littlewoods, and sends letters saying, "Would you like to own a nice house and a nice car and be able to go on holidays?". One's name is inserted by typewriter, slightly askew. Such letters are not written by the most inspired of script writers, but we still open them just in case that elusive cheque is in the envelope.
The Liberal Democrats have obviously employed just such a copywriter to produce a marvellous document called
Local Income Tax—The Best Way—How it Works".
To encourage us, it begins by saying that some countries have moved successfully from a poll tax to a local income tax—and it mentions the country that has done so. I hope that I do not cause my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office any difficulties by saying that, when the Liberal Democrats draw attention to the fact that Papua New Guinea has made the transition successfully, I do not find that to be the most persuasive authority. [AN HON. MEMBER: "And a head tax."] My hon. Friend may be right to suggest that that country also has a head tax.

Mr. Harry Barnes: rose—

Mr. Nicholls: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman as I am anxious that he has maximum exposure.

Mr. Barnes: Why did the hon. Gentleman support the Government when they introduced the poll tax, which was the system in Papua New Guinea at that time? I find it amazing that the hon. Gentleman should make such a point in an attempt to attack another party. He was guilty because he supported the Government.

Mr. Nicholls: I am not the slightest bit surprised that the hon. Gentleman should rally to the defence of an SLD document. It is worth remembering that every time that the Liberal Democrats have had an opportunity to enter into an alliance with another party they have always chosen the Labour party. It is interesting to note that the seeds of the next alliance are being sown.
I can tell the hon. Gentleman why, having been in favour of the community charge, I am now in favour of the council tax. As a politician, I have never found it embarrassing—although it is sometimes uncomfortable —to admit that I am wrong and that I have not carried the argument. The arguments in favour of the community charge were powerful. However, I have to admit that, in the end, we could not convince sufficient numbers of people of the case. For what it is worth, I suspect that that was because the whole structure of the community charge depended on local government raising too high a proportion of the money that would have to be spent. Once we had that wrong, there was no way that it would be accepted as being fair. If the Labour party were able to show the same contrition for the appalling way that the so-called moderates have run Liverpool for the past three years in the way that the Government have shown contrition with the community charge, there might he a little more hope for the Labour party.
The interesting Liberal Democrat document about a local income tax continues in the same chirpy style when explaining how it will work. It says:
Collection happens like this: everyone, wherever they live, pays a uniform rate of LIT—for example, 4 per cent. At the end of the year, each taxpayer's actual liability is assessed, depending on where they live and their overall taxable income. Those living in areas where the LIT is below 4 per cent. get a refund; those living in areas with higher LIT rates pay the difference. In practice, 70 to 80 per cent. of people get a rebate.
Nothing could be simpler than operating a system for local government revenue on that basis.
Just a moment's thought—and even a moment's thought by the SLD spokesman today, the hon. Member for Southport—would make us realise just how barmy that proposition is. Is Britain really to have a system of local government finance where a local authority can set any income tax rate that it wants, people then send their money to the authority in advance, and perhaps at the end of the year the authority returns some of it? We have heard about the bureaucracy created to run the community charge—just imagine the bureaucracy that would be involved with cheques coming in and out.
Since when has it been a sensible proposition that people should pay tax in advance of knowing what their tax computations might be? Why should either national or local government be entitled to sit on people's money for a year until it works out how much it intends to charge? What would happen in areas such as Eastbourne, which is

represented by the Liberal Democrat spokesman on local government—the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti)? I imagine salaries are relatively high in Eastbourne, but no doubt housing costs and mortgages are also high. How will those people feel if, suddenly, a local income tax rate is set at a high level, but they are told, "Don't worry about it—at the end of the day we might return some of your money."
I try to work out my budget for the year so that I can meet my commitments and aspirations and those of my family. I can usually estimate what my tax will be. I would be appalled if I thought that I would have to pay a sum of money in advance and that, perhaps, one day some of it might be sent back. It is a ridiculous and ludicrous idea. The fact that Papua New Guinea has followed that route is not something that I find especially encouraging.

Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend has emphasised the 4 per cent. mystical figure, which might result in a rebate at the end of a year. Of course, it could be that, having paid one's 4 per cent., the council is profligate, uncapped, and spends 6 per cent.—and so retrospectively one has to pay another 2 per cent. How would people cope with that?

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I think that people would be very miserable. It is impossible to budget our family finances in such circumstances.
There might be a case to be made—and I say this in my usual spirit of fairness—in favour of local income tax if there were to be some form of capping as well. However, the hon. Member for Southport had clearly been briefed —in so far as he was briefed at all—to confirm that the SLD is not in favour of capping. I am reminded of a debate in the House a couple of weeks ago when the hon. Member for Eastbourne was in his place, and I mentioned that his party was committed to not having any form of capping. I asked whether it was true. The hon. Gentleman nodded, and Hansard recorded it as "indicated assent". Anyone who saw him would realise that that did not for a moment do justice to the hon Gentleman's enthusiasm for the idea of no capping. He was positively bouncing. Indeed, he looked like a whippet on steroids. He was obviously trying to put across the message that there would be no capping under an SLD Administration.
Today, the hon. Member for Southport justified that by saying that people should be entitled to vote to pay that sort of money. That appears marvellous until we pause and think about it. We must face a central point about local government, and that is that it is the creation and creature of this House. It is this House which has set up structures for local government; it is this House which has the ultimate responsibility for it; it is this House which, in the end, has to change the arrangements. I do not discharge my constitutional duty by saying to someone in a constituency where the local government levy is wrong and unreasonable, "I am sorry, but it has nothing to do with me. If you want to, you can move out of the area." That would be monstrous. This House has an ultimate obligation to protect charge payers, ratepayers, council tax payers and so on.
Even if the hon. Gentleman was correct in saying that it should be a matter just for local government, imagine what the consequences would be. Better still, let us remember what the consequences were when left-wing authorities were able to levy rates without any capping. It drove out those who might have been able to afford to pay


them. It drove out businesses and left those remaining in a vortex of despair. That is what happens when we say that it is no part of national government if local government chooses to act irresponsibly. The idea that Britain could have a system of local income tax but no capping is monstrous.
As with all Liberal Democrat ideas, the local income tax is intended to appeal to the nice people's society. Their ideas are always squeaky clean. The late Lord Stockton said that the trouble with the Liberal Democrats was that they always produced sound and original ideas, but none of the sound ideas was original, and none of the original ideas was sound. That is true about local income tax.
It was interesting to note that when the SLD's shadow Chancellor—the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—gave a press conference to launch the publication of their bizarre document, he came under some pressure from The Independent, a very good newspaper. It is probably common knowledge that that newspaper is not wholly uncritical of the Government. In an article headed
Liberal Democrats promise 'fair' local tax",
Nicholas Timmins said that households with incomes above £20,000 a year, whether with one earner or two, would pay more. Mr. Timmins stated:
Mr. Beith said, 'We do not attempt to hide that. Those on higher income will pay more; that is the principle of fair taxation.'
Indeed it is. I wonder how many people who were beguiled by the prospect of a local income tax realise that a husband and wife who earn £10,000 a year each and who are assessed for local income tax will be among the wealthy of the land. Although in some places £10,000 a year will be above average income, as many hon. Members know, that is not a lot of money in the south-east or the south-west, although it is certainly better than not having that amount. The idea that it is so much money that it qualifies people to pay more is bizarre.
Yesterday, we found from costings of the Labour party's policies that its proposals will mean an extra 15 per cent. on income tax for someone in that bracket–£20 a week more.

Mr. Paul Boateng: That is bunkum.

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman who speaks for Lloyd's for the Labour party thinks that that is bunkum. He knows as well as I do that those proposals have been properly costed. That will be the effect. The hon. Gentleman can shake his head as much as he likes, but he knows that those proposals have been costed.
The Liberal Democrats have identified people with a joint income of £20,000 a year as ready to be soaked. Is it not interesting that the figures tie in neatly with the Labour party's proposals?
Under questioning, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed admitted that his proposals could lead to a local income tax of 17·3p in the pound. His justification was that national income tax might fall to 11 per cent. —perhaps it might. He then misread his figures. In working out what the average local income tax rate would be for the time being, he forgot that he was taking advantage of the transfer back to central Government in the £140 reduction which was made possible by an increase in VAT. Having voted against the Government's proposals, he then took advantage of them. Taken together, we are talking about a standard income tax rate

of more than 30 per cent., just to implement the proposals and have a standard tax rate. The local income tax does not bear examination.
I do not suggest that there is an ideal way of raising of tax locally. If anyone has any illusions about what a crazy, barmy, nightmarish system the Liberal Democrat proposals would provide, he could do a lot worse than read "Local Income Tax—The Best Way—How It Works". Its best point is probably the Papua New Guinea example. After that, it is downhill all the way.

Mr. William O'Brien: This is a significant motion. People who have served on local government are best able to contribute to a debate on local government services. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) has experience in local government, so one must give credence to some of his points. I support some of his comments on why a local income tax would not be an acceptable way of funding local government. I wish that I could say the same about the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), who moved the motion. I cannot find much information about his local government experience. It is sad that such people criticise local government without having served in it and without having helped to provide the services upon which many people rely.
The hon. Member for Stroud asked why local authorities should provide recreation facilities. A couple of years ago, the hon. Member for Teignbridge and I shared a platform, when we discussed sport and recreation with a national association. We were at one in our belief that local authorities need to provide such services. Many schoolchildren and elderly people rely on local authorities to provide those facilities.
The hon. Member for Stroud said that the provision of local government services had not been considered in detail. He wanted to have a productive debate, but the outcome of his speech was less than productive. The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) made a more productive contribution than the hon. Gentleman.
During the past 12 years, the House has passed a substantial number of Bills targeted at local government. The way in which the subject was introduced today was not in the interests of local government services; it was a further attack on local government. After 12 years of ruling this country, the Conservative party appears to have nothing constructive to offer people in terms of local government services. More than 52 Acts of Parliament have been directed at local government. There have been reviews and consultations. There has been no request for the views of elected representatives, although we are told that that will be the subject of a review in due course. I hope that there will be consultation on the role in local government of elected representatives.
Over the past 12 years, there has been greater centralisation of local government services as they have been pulled into the centre. In 1979, the Government campaigned for more freedom for local communities. Departmental committees and quangos costing more than £11 billion to administer were set up. However, it costs less than £42 million across the country for local councillors to run our local authorities. We should compare the cost to the country of the elected members who serve in local


government and who are responsible to their electorate with the costs of the quangos that have been appointed by the Government.
In addition to those 52 Acts of Parliament, the review of local government services, greater centralisation and all the quangos, we now face capping. We also have a Minister who is responsible for our cities. Furthermore, the Secretary of State for the Environment comes to the Dispatch Box to appeal for consultation because the Government have no idea how local government should be administered. In addition to those impositions and to increased centralisation, the Government now control 80 per cent. of local government revenue spending. That is what has happened under the past 12 years of the Tory Administration.

Mr. Knapman: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's argument with some interest. Are there any circumstances in which the Labour party would support the capping of local authorities?

Mr. O'Brien: Our document, "Fair Rates", states exactly how we would approach the financing of local government. The Labour party has also made it clear that we believe that choice belongs with the electorate. If there is to be capping, that should be the electorate's choice. It should not be imposed by faceless Ministers—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Faceless?"] They are faceless to many of my constituents who have no idea of the identity of the Minister or the Secretary of State who says to them, "You will have X, Y and Z services." However, they know who their councillor is, because they see him or her regularly in connection with the services and facilities that are provided by the local authority.
As I have said, although 80 per cent. of local government revenue spending and 100 per cent. of its capital expenditure is now controlled by central Government—by the Tory party—Conservative Members criticise local authorities that are struggling to provide services for local people.
The hon. Member for Stroud said that local government monopolies were a bad thing in a strong party system—

Mr. Knapman: indicated assent.

Mr. O'Brien: I notice that the hon. Gentleman is nodding in agreement. Does he agree that the private monopolies, such as the water companies, are also a bad thing? As a result of the monopoly in Yorkshire, water customers face a 13 per cent. increase on last year's charges, although inflation is now running at about 6 per cent. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that that kind of monopoly is fair and that faceless people should be able to tell Yorkshire Water's customers that the charges this year will be 13 per cent. greater than last year? British Gas and British Telecom are both monopolies, but the hon. Gentleman did not refer to either.
The hon. Gentleman also forgot to mention the continual reduction in the rate support grant given to local authorities during the 12 years since 1979. That reduction is a further reason for the increased charges that local authorities have had to impose on their rate and poll tax payers. If services are to be maintained, they must be paid for. If the Government withdraw their support for the

provision of those services, the local people invariably have to make up the shortfall. The Government cannot have it both ways: if they want to cut their revenue contributions for local services, the maintenance of those services will depend on the local community paying for them. That is what has happened in many local authorities.
After all the Government intervention—after those 52 Acts of Parliament, all the reviews, the greater centralisation, the quangos, the capping, the Ministers who are responsible for our cities, the appeals for consultation and Government control of expenditure—Conservative Members still have not found any satisfaction in the Government's control of the provision of local authority services. In my opinion, that is because the Conservative party and the Government do not believe in local government. There is no genuine approach from Conservative Members who believe in local government. That has been demonstrated more than once.
The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn), who is not in his place—

Mr. Fearn: Yes, I am.

Mr. O'Brien: I apologise.
The hon. Member for Southport referred to the poll tax. There is a great deal to be said about the dissatisfaction with the poll tax that poll tax payers have shown over the past 12 months. The poll tax was in force for less than 12 months in England and Wales before the Government decided to do a U-turn and scrap it. If there is one subject that the Government do not want to discuss, it is the poll tax, because it has cost a great deal of money, a great deal of hardship and has caused the greatest U-turn by any Government and especially the greatest U-turn by this Government in this decade.
A few months ago, the hon. Member for Stroud and many other Conservative Members were proving how good the poll tax was, both in their constituencies and in the House, and saying how important it was for local government. How they followed through the Lobby to ensure that it would be in place. How they told us, both in the House and throughout the country, that councillors would now be accountable because everyone would have to contribute to the cost of local services—that was the argument for the poll tax.
The right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) insisted that the poll tax should be on the statute book, and that local government finance should be raised by the tax. If the right hon. Member for Finchley were here today, she would still be insisting that the poll tax should be in place.
I remind the House that the right hon. Member for Finchley has gone and that the poll tax is due to follow her. We have been told that the poll tax is dead, but no one can say that until it is taken off the statute book completely. Labour Members of Parliament offered to support the Government to introduce a Bill to abolish the poll tax forthwith. There would have been no opposition whatsoever if the Government had wanted to abolish the tax. However, that offer was not taken up.
A few months ago, the hon. Member for Stroud and other Tory Members of Parliament were arguing how fair the poll tax would be and how important and necessary it was for the financing of local government. Now the hon. Member for Stroud and his colleagues are telling their constituents how unfair, undemocratic, unworkable and


costly the poll tax is. That is the sort of U-turn that members of the Government have to face because they got it wrong in the first instance and because they have not got the guts to say, "Sorry" to the people of this country for the hardship that has been created.
How wrong it is that people on income support still have to pay 20 per cent. of their poll tax and will have to continue to do so until after 1993. The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have admitted that a fair system of financing local government should be based on a person's ability to pay, but not until after 1993.
Why should people who are facing and witnessing hardship have to continue to face it until 1993 or 1994? I ask Conservative Members, and especially the hon. Member for Stroud, whose motion refers to "value for money", whether it is value for money to spend £15 to collect £5 from people on income support? That happens in many authority areas. The cost of collecting the 20 per cent. from people on income support is more than the value of the money realised. Is that value for money?

Mr. Knapman: Value for money is indeed important, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is coming to that part of his speech. I hope that he will deal with the matter in some detail. My position is the same as that of M r. Keva Coombes, the former leader of Liverpool city council, who said:
In that particular case, the council's problems are not down to resources, but rather that it costs four times more to pick up a piece of litter in Liverpool than it does in other areas.
Perhaps that has to do with value for money.

Mr. O'Brien: Again I ask the hon. Gentleman: does he believe that paying £15 to collect £5 from people on income support is value for money?

Mr. Boateng: Answer.

Mr. O'Brien: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman declines to answer.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Liverpool. I shall refer to the city of Westminster—that well-run Tory authority. In 1991, it cost Westminster £42 per head to collect the poll tax—

Mrs. Currie: Which was how much?

Mr. O'Brien: It cost £42 per head to collect the poll tax. In Westminster, 20 per cent. of the 1991 poll tax was £39, so for every person on income support who qualified under the Government's terms to pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax, Westminster was losing £3 per head for collecting it. Is that value for money? That happened not in Liverpool, but in Westminster.

Mr. Knapman: Which would the hon. Gentleman prefer?

Mr. O'Brien: I would say that such people should not have to make a payment. It causes them hardship and problems, and it is administratively uneconomic. There is no justification for charging people when it costs the authority money to collect the payments.
A sum of £300 million would exempt the poorest from the 20 per cent. poll tax payment. Not only would that help those in need who are on income support, but it would relieve the administrative burden on local authorities that find that collecting the 20 per cent. costs more than the

money realised. Therefore, there are substantial benefits from abolishing the 20 per cent. payment for those on income support and low incomes.
I remind the House that, in answer to a question on 6 February, which is printed in Hansard at column 153, we were told that rebates were costing £1£99 billion. A significant number of people are eligible for rebates, including Tory Members who earn their £29,000 a year. That money should go to the people who need it most. It is not impossible for the Government even now to abolish the 20 per cent. payment that people on income support must make.
In the Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that value added tax was to increase from 15 to 17·5 per cent. to help pay for local government services and rebates to poll tax payers. That 16 per cent. increase in VAT means that a further £4·3 billion will be added to poll tax rebates.
The Government are giving money to people who can afford to pay but are taking no action to ease the hardship of the very poor who suffer most from the payment of poll tax. Had the 20 per cent. payment by those on income support been abolished, the outstanding poll tax, as mentioned in the motion, would have been much less.
The motion also refers to delay in collecting the poll tax. Had the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the Cabinet plans to reduce poll tax bills a fortnight earlier, he could have saved the nation's taxpayers over £200 million. Local authorities, being efficient, had all the poll tax bills printed and ready to be redistributed, and then the Chancellor said that they should be scrapped and the exercise done again. Was that value for money? Did the Chancellor's action secure value for the country? Some Government Departments could learn a lesson in achieving value for money by examining the way in which efficient local authority departments go about their tasks.
The motion refers to "rigorous controls on overspending". Let us be clear that that applies not only to city authorities. A recent announcement stated that poll tax capping would apply to all authorities—with the exception of parish and town councils—providing budgets. So all district authorities are now subject to poll tax capping.
The SSA for Stroud district authority for the current year is £7·68 million, not an excessive amount. Providing services for the community that the hon. Member for Stroud represents would involve expenditure by the district authority of £9·5 million, representing a 30 per cent. increase. Were that amount to be spent, that authority would be capped under the Government's procedures.
Does the hon. Member for Stroud consider that his authority should be poll-tax-capped on the basis of those figures? It is clear from his silence that he is not in a position to reply. Surely it is not exorbitant for Stroud district authority to want to spend less than £10 million on providing services. Before launching motions such as the one before the House today, the hon. Member for Stroud should discover what is happening on his own patch.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): The hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), who has the good sense not to fall for his ploy. My hon. Friend could not possibly answer his


question until the Secretary of State had let local authorites know what capping criteria he would apply for next year.
I know from the frequent correspondence I receive from my hon. Friend how assiduous he is. He has pointed out to me that Stroud has an SSA of £7·7 million, which is £1·8 million, or 19·3 per cent., below the 1990–91 income. However, the community charge is 20 per cent. less than in 1990–91. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to Stroud's tendency to wish to achieve more than is realistic, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud is right to be cautious.

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Member for Stroud tabled the motion. In opening the debate, he criticised local government, but when I ask about the position facing his constituents through his local authority, the Minister says that I am being unfair. Is the Minister implying that the Secretary of State will look favourably upon Stroud, and will allow a 30 per cent. increase in its standard spending assessment? If so, we have much to look forward to. The hon. Member for Stroud should tell his district authority that, if it does not reduce its planned expenditure and the services it provides, it will be poll-tax-capped.

Mr. Knapman: If Stroud district council overspends, bearing in mind the fact that we do not yet have all the information, Stroud, like every other district council in the country, should be capped. That is why I asked the hon. Gentleman whether there were any circumstances in which the Labour party would support capping. His answer carried no conviction one way or the other. The hon. Gentleman should read the motion, because his remarks suggest that he has not done so. It states:
That this House notes the widespread discontent with the inadequacies of local government services in parts of Britain, particularly in many inner city areas".
Why does the hon. Gentleman not mention Liverpool and so many parts of London represented by Labour councils, which are now attracting the attention of newspapers?

Mr. O'Brien: I am discussing local government services, which is the title of the motion. The motion is framed
To call attention to policies on…the delivery of local Government services".
The delivery of local government services, depends on central Government saying exactly how 80 per cent. of local government income will be presented. If any reference should be made to the provision of local government services, it should be not to local authorities but to the Government, who provide 80 per cent. of their revenue.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Stroud says that, if his district authority wants to spend £9·95 million on services for his constituents, whether for recreation, for bus shelters or for housing and services connected with housing, he will support capping. If those services then cannot be provided because of capping, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make it clear to his constituents that it is because his supports such a principle.

Mr. Knapman: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that, in Stroud last year, the direct labour organisation lost several million pounds.

Mr. O'Brien: I shall come to that later. The hon. Gentleman's motion refers to competitive tendering and

value for money. Stroud is not the only Tory authority to be suffering as a result of capping. Services will be cut because the Government are now applying poll tax capping to district authorities.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I do not think that we should move beyond Stroud at present. The figures produced in the answer of 5 December, to which I referred earlier, show that, before the £140 element was introduced, Stroud received only 12·9 per cent. support from the revenue support grants, which puts it at the bottom of the league. It does not receive anything like the 50 per cent. that the Government promised. If it sticks to the standard spending assessment provisions, it increasingly has to find money from the poll tax funds. The Opposition should seek to defend and assist Stroud, even if the hon. Gentleman who represents that constituency does not.

Mr. O'Brien: I thought that we had made it clear, that, if there was a case for providing services to Stroud and other district authorities that are subject to Government capping, it was being made by Opposition, not Conservative, Members.
Stroud has a budget of less than £10 million to provide services. Local authority members in Stroud will provide their services free or for very little. Reference was made to Government quangos. The urban development corporation in Leeds spends a similar amount to that which the Stroud authority wants to spend. The chairman of that corporation will receive more than £16,000 for administering that budget, but the councillors of Stroud will receive nothing like that amount. However, the hon. Member for Stroud attacks his local authority and supports urban development corporations, the chairmen of which are handsomely paid and which provide local government services. It is disappointing and sad that the hon. Member for Stroud does not defend his own local authority and the services it provides.

Mr. Holt: I do not expect to hear too much common sense in this debate from either side of the Chamber, but I have just heard the most nonsensical contribution of all. The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) does not understand what an urban development corporation does or how it is run. The Tees urban development corporation has done an excellent job of regenerating the Teesside district so that the region is not suffering as badly as other parts of the country at present. He tried to equate the job of a councillor with that of a chairman of a development corporation. Has the hon. Gentleman never heard of a chief executive of a local authority receiving more money than the chairman of a development corporation?

Mr. O'Brien: I value the services of members who are elected to local authorities to defend the interests and services of their community, and I am comparing those members with the appointments made by Government Departments and quangos. I referred to urban development corporations, but there are 15,000 Government committees that cost more than £11 billion—that is a separate subject, which I am prepared to debate with any Conservative Member. The Three Rivers authority has a budget of £5·6 million for its standard spending assessment and wants to spend £7·45 million to provide services,


which means that it would be 33 per cent. above its SSA. Therefore, it will have to reduce the services that it provides through its authority.
A press release was issued by the chairman of the Association of District Councils. He was a Conservative councillor, not a Liverpool or a Labour councillor. The press release states:
A furious Roy Thomason, ADC Chairman, declared: `We appear to have a Government that is being run by the Treasury for the sake of Treasury convenience. I am shocked that the Government should be threatening small-spending district councils with these centralist controls. The budgets involved are trivial sums in terms of overall public expenditure.
I am shocked that the Government should so attack many of its own supporters in local government, particularly district councils which have raided their balances to keep charge levels down this year and maintain services.
It is also shocking that the Secretary of State for the Environment should completely ignore all the assurances previous ministers gave when the capping provisions were introduced that low-spending authorities would be excluded from the controls…I am greatly saddened by this move.'
That is dated 21 May 1991. It shows what Tories outside the House—the people of Stroud and other Tory-controlled authorities—are thinking. The leader of the Association of District Councils has made it clear that he will have no truck with hon. Members who plan to cap local authorities. What the chairman of the ADC says speaks volumes.
Strong reference is made in the motion to inner city areas. The Government have failed local government. They have done nothing to try to resolve inner city problems, particularly in London. The hon. Member for Stroud referred to housing.

Mr. John Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. First, I congratulate you on the very happy announcement that was made last Saturday. It gave pleasure to every hon. Member. Secondly, have you received any request from the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) to make a statement to the House about her public expenditure programme that was so well publicised yesterday?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind comment. There has been no request for a statement.

Mr. O'Brien: I hope that Conservative Members will not make a request for short speeches. If there are interventions like that, the proceedings will be delayed. I was dealing with inner-city problems. The hon. Member for Stroud referred to housing but not to the problems that are facing those on housing lists. He said that, in the past, a good standard of housing was provided. He referred to the Parker Morris standards. Housing is the major problem in many cities. Homelessness is greater now than it ever was. There is a shortage of affordable housing either to buy or to rent. Nowhere does the motion refer to homelessness or to the housing provision that is required, not just in cities and urban areas but in rural areas. There is a shortage of housing. The Government have done nothing to improve the position during the last 12 years.

Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Gentleman talks about a shortage of housing. Is he aware that there are 20,000 empty council houses in London, almost all of them in Labour-controlled local authorities?

Mr. O'Brien: I draw attention to a statement by the Public Accounts Committee, which expressed concern that the Government own 31,000 empty properties that could house the homeless. If the point is made that local authorities own empty houses it is only fair and just to draw attention to the 31,000 properties, according to the Public Accounts Committee's report, that are owned by the Government which could be used to house homeless people and reduce the waiting lists in many of the areas that Conservative Members of Parliament represent. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) has allowed me to make that point.
The Public Accounts Committee called on the Secretary of State for the Environment to act now with "due urgency", setting targets and time scales and pumping more cash into London councils with the worst problems. It is not the London Boroughs Association or the Association of London Authorities which make that plea but the Public Accounts Committee of this House—that the Secretary of State should make provision for the homeless.

Mr. Tony Banks: I want to add a few facts to what my hon. Friend has said about homelessness in London. In London, 2·8 per cent. of local authorities' housing stock is vacant. The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) said that there were 20,000 empty properties in London, but many of them are not fit to be inhabited. One of the reasons is that the Government are preventing local authorities from making them fit for habitation so that people can move in. There may be 20,000 vacant public sector houses in London, but there are also 97,000 empty private houses in London.

Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend's statement is borne out by the report published by the Public Accounts Committee. It states that officials from the Department of the Environment had admitted that
they did not know enough about the underlying causes of homelessness".
One of the underlying causes of homelessness is the fact that local authorities are denied the resources to make houses fit to live in. I hope that the Secretary of State for the Environment will take note of and act on the Public Accounts Committee report.
I remind the hon. Member for Hendon, South that the Government own 31,000 empty houses which could be used.

Mr. Key: I am rather worried that I might not be able to speak this afternoon, because the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) has already spoken for 45 minutes. In case I do not get to speak, I must say that, yes, there are 20,700 empty local authority properties in London, but there is also £360 million of uncollected rent in London. What an enormous contribution it would make to housing people if the hon. Gentleman told the Labour party in the London boroughs to collect the rents.

Mr. O'Brien: What income could be realised in rent if the 31,000 houses owned by the Government were let? What income would that put in the Government's coffers?
I accept that the Minister wishes to speak in the debate, but his hon. Friend the Member for Stroud took the best part of an hour to move the motion. [HON. MEMBERS:"It is his debate."] And I am entitled to reply, which is what I am doing.
Over the past 12 years, the Government have also failed the towns and inner cities because there is no co-ordinated transport programme. Transport is not included in the motion, but cities come to a standstill at peak times because there is no co-ordinated transport system.

Mr. Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is the third time on which the hon. Gentleman has referred to something that is not in the motion, and has then spoken about it for five or 10 minutes. Is it not right and proper that you should ask him—as other occupants of the Chair would do—to stick to what is on the Order Paper and to discuss Liverpool, gay advice centres and other such issues?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is a very wide motion, and I have not yet heard anything that is out of order. However, I am sure the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) wil bear it in mind that many other hon. Members are still hoping to speak.

Mr. O'Brien: I said that local government services include transport, but they also include law and order, which are not dealt with in the motion although they are significant problems for local communities and for local authorities. One of the evils of capping is that police authorities—especially that in my area of West Yorkshire —have been threatened with capping and have therefore had to reduce the number of policemen and the number of those on the beat. There has been a reduction in law and order services which should be provided for local authorities.
The motion refers to compulsory competitive tendering. Of all tenders, 80 per cent. have been won by local authorities. It is significant that the Department of the Environment has commissioned research into the impact of compulsory competitive tendering over the past two years. The report has not yet been published, and the survey cost £100,000.

Mr. Key: It is published.

Mr. O'Brien: The survey cost £100,000 to produce, and covered 40 English local authorities. It was intended to reveal substantial savings, but the opposite proved to be the case. The researchers point out that there have been fewer savings than the Government expected.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. O'Brien: Yes, I am prepared to give way, but Conservative Members and the Minister must not then complain about not being able to participate in the debate.

Mr. Arnold: The hon. Gentleman took great pride in the number of contracts allocated to direct labour organisations within Labour councils. What would he say to the former Labour leader of Liverpool city council, in view of the specific example of how the council fiddled the system to enable it to get the contract, despite the fact that the alternative private bid was £1 million cheaper?

Mr. O'Brien: Sections 13 and 14 of the Local Government Act 1988 exist for the purpose that the hon. Gentleman has suggested. If Ministers are not applying the Act, the hon. Gentleman should direct his questions to them.
The report was intended to discredit the delivery of services by local authorities and to favour the private contractors, but that did not work. There is evidence from the people who are subject to tendering. After the privatisation of its refuse collecting service last year, Kensington and Chelsea received 400 complaints a day in the first month of operation by the successful private contractor. The Prime Minister wants to introduce a charter for residents, but people who are not yet covered by the charter complain about the services provided by the private operator in Kensington and Chelsea.
Tayside received so many complaints after the first six weeks of a school cleaning contract that the contract went back to to the direct services organisation to ensure that the school was cleaned. One head of a junior school took the unprecedented step of writing to parents saying that he intended to close his school on health and hygiene grounds because of poor work by private contractors. That is the value we get from private contractors. The headmaster described the cleaning services as
at best a shambles, at worst non-existent".
In some schools in Essex, the pupils do the cleaning.
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, said:
I am generally in favour of privatisation but with school services I take a pragmatic view. I am aware of the ups and downs of privatisation.
The motion does not address the reality of providing local services to the community. If we discuss local government services, we should discuss the principles of local government. If we do, we find that the hon. Member for Stroud has no idea about the services and principles of local government.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) on his good fortune in being able to initiate this debate, which has proved both important and constructive. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have addressed us with some passion. Although I may not be quite as passionate as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), I shall illustrate my arguments as graphically as I can.
First, however, the whole House will wish to record the deep shock that we felt at the death yesterday of Harry Collinson, the principal planning officer of Derwentside, and to express our sympathy and great sorrow to his widow Anne and their children, Katy and Robert. The incident illustrates the danger in which public servants often find themselves and also the strong tradition of public service that we are privileged to enjoy both in the civil service as a whole and among local government officers. I pay an unreserved tribute to them.
There are other groups of people who make a great deal of time available and who are unpaid, although they sometimes receive expenses. The largest single group in local government is made up of the councillors themselves. I have no hesitation in thanking councillors of whatever party for the work that they do, because it involves great sacrifices of time, effort and energy to serve in local government. I do not think that they would wish comparisons to be made between the voluntary role of the public services and paid posts such as chairmanships of urban development corporations.
There are other groups that we may not think of so readily. I refer first to the valuations and community charge tribunals. The members and officers of the tribunals service play a crucial role throughout the country. They do so every day, they have done so for many years, and they will continue to do so. It is a very difficult role, as appeals for community charges, appeals on business rates and so on are very demanding. In addition to the local members of those tribunals, I wish to thank all the officers and staff who put in a great deal of work on behalf of the community.
I could cite many more groups, but there is one in particular which we should thank. The bailiffs do a difficult and sometimes an unpleasant and dangerous job. On the whole, they work in a professional and regulated way. The Certificated Bailiffs Association operates professionally and should be congratulated on seeking always to maintain standards. It is an ancient organisation. When I addressed its annual general meeting recently, I met a bailiff from Darlington who had been doing the job since 1934. He was a very experienced and professional gentleman indeed.
We understand that the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation is aiming to establish a national code of practice to cover bailiffs working on collecting the community charge. The IRRV aims to have the code agreed between the local authority associations, consumer groups and the Certificated Bailiffs Association. I understand that the National Consumer Council is involved. We should seek to encourage the professionalism of the groups of citizens on whom so many of us depend.
It is not for me to wind up the debate, which was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, but I must pick up one or two of the points that have been made. I have nothing to say about the conspiracy theories held by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East, but I have something to say about facts which he may or may not have got right. In referring to SSAs, he claimed that North-East Derbyshire did not score on density or sparsity of population. That is not correct. The total SSA is £76 per adult, and North-East Derbyshire receives £8 per adult for ward-weighted density and £9 for sparsity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) spoke of the correspondence that he had had with me on banding and discounts, and I am considering his representations carefully. I admired the strength with which he argued the case against local income tax: he put it exceptionally well. I would only add that the same argument could be applied to those who wish the universal business rate to be handed back to local authorities. One of the strongest reasons for resisting that suggestion is that for many years in some areas authorities that charged very high business rates were responsible for driving businesses out of our inner-city areas. I can think of nothing more foolish than giving back to those same authorities the power once again to drive out initiative, people and businesses.
The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) ran over ground that we had debated previously, so I shall not seek to answer his points at length. However, on his point about the police, I have to tell him that we expect police authorities to seek maximum economy and value for money. We have made clear the importance of maintaining manpower at the approved levels. It is disappointing that some police authority budgets assume

manpower reductions that we regard as unnecessary. Neither the West Yorkshire police authority nor any other single-service police authority was designated for capping.
If we do not trust local government—as the hon. Gentleman sought to argue—we would hardly have delegated so much responsibility to it over the years. The House sets the tone for local government. We explain what we think should be done in the interests of the community, and we trust local government to carry out that policy.
Perhaps we need to ask ourselves what is local government about? I can tell the House what it is not about. It is certainly not for the convenience of political parties; it is not for the preservation of vested interests in local government jobs. Local government has an inertia all its own, and too often the local government machine runs for its own sake. That is not desirable. Our citizens do not mind how a service is provided, as long as it is provided. That is the responsibility which local government must meet.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Normanton about the standing of some local councillors. I have the honour to serve as a local government Minister, and my job takes me to many local authority areas. When I meet the public in their community centres and consult them about Government policies, I ask, "How well do you know your councillors?" I am glad to say that, very often, not only do they know them, but they are present at the meetings. However, sometimes the city councils and the councilors—and this is prevalent in our urban areas—are loathed by the communities that they seek to serve. That is a problem in responsible government. If we seek to improve local government and its services, we cannot ignore the fact that too many people do not know, and do not care, who their councillors are—they just know that they are not being consulted about or involved in any policy making. They do not have a vision for the future that is expressed by the policies in the town hall. That is bad news.
The hon. Gentleman claimed that the Government had done nothing about inner cities. I remind him that inner-city areas have been represented by the Labour party for many, many years—and that is one of the main reasons why there have been such poor services.
During the past week, I have spoken to local authorities and communities in Wolverhampton, Birmingham, Bradford, Manchester, Salford, and, yesterday, Bristol. There is an interesting variety of approaches to local government. Many councillors are of extremely high calibre and it is wonderful that they are doing the job in the way that they are. However, there are others about whom one is rather less enthusiastic—and I am not making a party point.

Mr. Tony Banks: They are rather like Members of Parliament.

Mr. Key: The hon. Gentleman is right, which is why I do not draw any conclusions. It is a fact of life. It is also true of council officers. Often they are motivated, dedicated, efficient, incredibly hard-working and burn the midnight oil on behalf of the councillors whom they serve. However, all is not yet right in local government, and it is no good pretending that it is.
I wish to explain the Government's view of the role of local government in our society, while reaffirming our commitment to and support for local government. Local government exists to ensure that the community gets


certain essential day-to-day services provided at a local level. Our policy is entirely dictated by our wish to ensure, and our responsibility for ensuring, that those services are provided as efficiently and effectively as possible. We are about quality, and we are about value for money.
Value for money means value for people. The better one spends every pound in local government, as elsewhere, the more value for money one gets for the people who are paying it. In our experience, the two go closely together. We have a responsibility to the citizen—to ensure that he or she gets the quality of service that he or she has a right to expect. We have a responsibility to the national taxpayer, the local charge payer and the business ratepayer—to ensure that their hard-earned money is spent efficiently and effectively.
Most local authorities share those objectives. It is a great pity that the dogma, idiocy and incompetence of a relatively small number of largely Labour authorities have done so much to sully the reputation of local government in this country. I sometimes despair when I see headlines in our national newspapers with nothing to say about anything except Liverpool and Lambeth. I think about the good work that is being done by so many local authorities. A great shadow has been cast over local government by this vocal and vicious minority, more interested in acting out revolutionary fantasies than in providing decent people with decent services.
The prime example must be Liverpool, as many hon. Members said—once a great city and still a great city. It has been brought to its knees by successive Labour councils dominated by Militant. There is no doubt about that. It has become almost a joke, and not one of a nice variety. It has become a parody. Television enthusiasts will have been watching "GBH.", which protrays the scandal of Liverpool-type politics—of course, grievous bodily harm is what is being done to this city.
What is the Labour party's reaction? What can we expect from the Labour party? In July last year, the Leader of the Opposition said to The Times:
I have talked many times with ordinary people in Liverpool and their constant desire is for decent services…they are sick and tired of people who constantly flout their responsibilities and obligations. We will have no more of that, starting right now.
Not much happened for a long time.
A few days ago, Ian Lowes, one of the principal architects of the chaos in Liverpool, said:
Oh, yes…never mind what happened in the winter of 1979, this is going to be Liverpool's Summer of Discontent." Is that the way to convince people of the value of local government? I think not.
The admission by Keva Coombes that the council was
obsessed with the interests of our employees and not enough with the interests of our ratepayers
has been graphically illustrated in the past few weeks.
All this is happening not just in Liverpool. Yesterday I spoke to a parent with children in schools in Lambeth. The head of a Lambeth school has been told that he can telephone the Department of Education and Science only between 10 o'clock and 12 noon on Tuesdays and Thursdays. What an attitude to take towards teachers. What a disgrace. That attitude is taken even by other more gentle authorities. I have met representatives of Stoke-on-Trent council several times and have a good deal

of sympathy with them, but even the council's officers are disillusioned and are not highly motivated. I have read the following:
The police are investigating allegations which include bribes for contracts, overspending without authority, misuse of public funds for the benefit of council officials and friends, intimidation of witnesses and destruction of evidence.
That is happening in Stoke-on-Trent, for goodness sake. What is going on?
Then there are the problems of Derbyshire. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) would tell us what advice she would give to Opposition Members invited by the leader of Derbyshire county council to contribute to a whip-round of 100 a head to pay his legal fees when he lost his case in the High Court. I imagine that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East is not enthusiastic about it and has something to say—

Mrs. Currie: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) was advised by the Labour Member who received the letter that if Labour Members had been on the jury Mr. Bookbinder would have gone down for even more.

Mr. Key: As usual, my hon. Friend makes her own point tellingly.

Mr. Harry Barnes: rose—

Mr. Key: I must give way to the hon. Gentleman as a matter of courtesy.

Mr. Barnes: If any money is left over after the whip-round for Councillor Bookbinder, could it not usefully be provided to those hon. Members who are Lloyd's underwriters for running soup kitchens in Westminster hall?

Mr. Key: The hon. Gentleman knows the Government's attitude to the suggestion that Lloyd's underwriters should be given special treatment. Has the hon. Gentleman paid his £100 to Derbyshire county council?

Mr. Barnes: What I said earlier shows that I am sometimes slow paying my bill. I have however, been contributing towards the fund, but how much I have paid is a matter for me.

Mr. Key: I respect the privacy of the hon. Gentleman's financial affairs.
The effect of what has happened in Liverpool spills out beyond the city's boundaries. It has been said that Liverpool has been losing 10,000 people a year for 20 years. Where have they gone, and what sort of people are they? I fear that they are not only the sort of people who are fed up with the Labour council, who want to make a success of their lives and who wish to take full advantage of the opportunities that the Government have provided during the past 12 years, although it is a tregedy that those people leave Liverpool.
One of the prime reasons behind my right hon. Friend's initiative, City Challenge, is to reverse the trend of people leaving our inner cities as soon as they are vaguely successful. We want to encourage people not only to stay in the inner cities, but to return to them. That is why we must concentrate on jobs, training and the quality of life of all those people. However, as I said, it is not only the winners who wish to leave Liverpool. My hon. Friend the


Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) was distressed when he came to see me the day before yesterday. He said that he had hoped to participate in the debate but that he would be busy in his constituency today. He told me that Bournemouth has a severe overspill problem as a result of the problems in Liverpool. Apparently, about 7,000 Liverpudlians are now in Bournemouth, most of whom, according to my hon. Friend, are on the "Costa del Dole" and are contributing to the squatting problem in Bournemouth. I am also told that those people have contributed disproportionately to the problems of drugs, crime and prostitution in my hon. Friend's constituency. I do not know whether that is true, but I have no reason to doubt that allegation.

Mr. Tony Banks: As the Minister knows, Bournemouth is a pleasant town which is well run by its Conservative council. One of the reasons that it is so well run is that the council is into municipal enterprise in a big way. It does not sell off its services. It wants to run its own buses. It has its own conference centre and runs its own car parks and shopping malls—all the things that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) criticised.

Mr. Key: What the hon. Gentleman does not say is that those services demand very little from the national purse because they are so very well run. The point is that Bournemouth is largely self-financing as an authority.
We cannot get away from the issue, which is the face of Labour government as we see it operating in our great cities. We have been told for too long that the Labour party is getting things under control. Last July the Leader of the Opposition said that, starting from that date, the problems would all be over. More recently—on 3 March—a Walworth road spokesman was quoted in The Sunday Times as saying:
We have sorted out Liverpool.
Oh yes?

Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister seems to think that Liverpool is a badly run city—no doubt that has something to do with the Walton by-election. However, as we have been talking £100, will the hon. Gentleman publicly bet me £100 that the Conservatives will win that by-election?

Mr. Key: I have a confession to make—I am not a betting man. When I was about 15 years old I occasionally had a flutter on the point-to-point. My fingers were so badly burned with losing my pocket money that I have not put money on horses or anything else ever since. However, it has not made me rich.

Mr. Harry Cohen: At the conclusion of his remarks about Bournemouth the Minister quickly mentioned the financial problems of local authorities. The underlying financial problem was made much worse by the Government's poll tax and their cuts in grants to local authorities—especially Labour-controlled authorities. The central problem is that richer people live in areas where there are fewer problems and they pay less, and poorer people live in areas with most problems and have to pay more. That is the scandal of this Government.

Mr. Key: It is extraordinary to hear Labour Members yet again perpetuating the myth that there have been cuts in local government spending and resourcing from central Government. Nothing can be further from the truth, and

the hon. Gentleman knows it. In the past two years there has been a 25 per cent. increase in central Government funding of local authorities. What matters is the quality of services provided by that money.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Labour party running Liverpool cares so much about services for the people of Liverpool, it would help them by claiming the Government grant available? Millions of pounds are available in grants which they have not even bothered to claim.

Mr. Key: I confirm that there are indeed councils that do not claim what they may claim. It is often because they are so incredibly inefficient that they miss deadlines and often do not even know how to apply for grants. The largest single source of revenue lost to Labour authorities is not merely uncollected community charge but uncollected rates from before the charge was introduced and uncollected business rates from before the introduction of the uniform business rate. It is quite absurd that some authorities are so poor that they cannot even do that.

Mr. Knapman: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the Walton district of Liverpool one person has not paid any rent since 1982 and the amount outstanding was in the order of £9,000? The reason that the money has not been paid was that no one had asked him for rent for that number of years. Due to the by-election in that area, he has miraculously been asked for the rent and has paid it with a cheque.

Mr. Key: I am grateful for that contribution from my hon. Friend. I am afraid that it is rather typical. One can quote examples of Labour authorities from all over the country that are in a similar mess.
We recognise the face of Labour government when we see it. However loudly the Leader of the Opposition and his friends may proclaim that they have purged the party of militants, they always resurface, like ghouls from the grave, to haunt him. We were told in an article in The Guardian recently:
The GMB, union of the contentious gravediggers, reminded people that it was better to die on your feet than live on your knees…their celebrated convenor…Ian Lowes, explained how he coped with the abuse of the bereaved.
`When people are going through that period of their lives…they are not thinking rationally.'
There was much genuine resentment at the way decent strikers could be cast as cold-hearted villains. 'Do they think that union members are immune from bereavement?' asked…one of Liverpool's 47 surcharged councillors. 'During the Winter of Discontent, we had to put our loved ones in storage too.' When the trouble was over,…GMB men volunteered to dig the backlog of graves by candlelight.
What a pity that they got themselves into that position in the first place.
Opposing the lunacy, ineptitude and squalor of the Liverpools and Lambeths does not make this Government "anti-local government". On the contrary, our whole approach over the past few years has been to strengthen the capacity of local government to deliver. We have looked at the practices and methods of the best local authorities and sought to extend them to all authorities. We created the Audit Commission to monitor the performance and quality of local government and provide it with immensely valuable constructive advice. Anybody who does not realise that we already have a "quality commission" simply has not been paying attention.
In the past local government has often seemed concerned more with the providers than the receivers of services. It is central Government's role to see things from a wider perspective. Our concern has been to help make local government more responsive to people's needs—to ensure the provision of effective services to the citizen. We should not allow dogma or vested interest to prevent us from achieving that goal.
Our policy is to enable local authorities to survive and grow. Local authorities should be, above all, user-friendly. So our ideal is the enabling authority—local authorities concentrating on the quality and efficiency of local services, rather than the day-to-day difficulties of their organisation and delivery, which is the proper role of council officers.
Competitive tendering has been central to the movement towards enabling authorities. There is widespread recognition in local government that the private sector has much to offer in the delivery of a wide range of services, from rubbish collection to computer management, and individual authorities have been keen to grasp the opportunities for greater efficiency which using private contractors can offer. Their example has been important in helping us to develop our thinking.
With the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and the Local Government Act 1988, we have made it compulsory to seek competitive tenders for major manual services, such as construction, building cleaning and refuse collection. For authorities that are enthusiasts for market-testing, compulsory competitive tendering has been a valuable validation of good practice. But for authorities whose ideas of service provision are determined by the demands of the trade unions, not the needs of the community, CCT has come as a rude shock—rude, but healthy!
We have looked at the impact of CCT across local authorities through research carried out by the Institute of Local Government Studies in Birmingham. The message is clear. Competition has produced real productivity improvements, certainly where contracts have been won by private companies, but also where local authorities' work forces have been successful—because they have had to increase their efficiency and trim their costs to compete. At the same time, standards of service have been maintained or improved.
We have made it clear that we are seeking to extend the benefits of competition more widely across local government, in particular by considering how best to bring professional services within a framework of CCT.

Mr. O'Brien: This is an important matter. Does the Minister accept that there is need to write into contracts, whether with private companies or direct labour organisations, that quality must be achieved? We are receiving reports that the quality of service is not being maintained. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important to include in any contract a provision about quality?

Mr. Key: The hon. Gentleman's remark is timely. Apart from the fact that, of course, quality is implicit in the process, we have commissioned a study that is under way and which will draw on local authorities' experiences of moving services, particularly professional services,

towards commercial operation, if not wholly into the private sector. In due course, we shall introduce specific proposals so that local government and other interests can make their views known.
Together with CCT and the quality and efficiency work of the Audit Commission, we are bringing about a steady improvement in local government services. Much more needs to be done. We need to give attention to the quality of services for which local authorities are responsible but which individual citizens experience at first hand. They may know or care little about how a service is organised or exactly who provides it, but they care very much about how that service affects them personally—whether their bins are emptied, for instance, at the time they are supposed to be emptied or whether they find some of the contents in their front gardens when they come home from work. These are small things in themselves, but are what matter a great deal to the householder and in practice are the measure of whether a service is judged good value.
This is where our citizens' charter will bite. It will involve ordinary citizens in the process of improving local services, by giving them the power to insist on value for money. Already the Government's measures under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 empowering citizens to take to court councils which fail in their litter collection duties, are in place. As the House will know, that has happened in Liverpool. The citizens' charter will extend this principle of empowerment to provide ways of encouraging an emphasis on quality in many other areas of local government. Standards of service will be set and checks put into the system to ensure that they are met. Information on service targets and achievements will be freely available to the councils' customers so that they know what they are getting for their money.
Local authorities are already responding to the challenge. Some imaginative schemes are afloat and others are in the pipeline. We recognise where progress is being made and wish to encourage those initiatives. The Government are open to ideas and are considering a whole range of possible measures that will help to improve local services. We will announce our proposals in a White Paper shortly. I am sure that they will be widely welcomed.

Mr. O'Brien: I appreciate the Minister's response to my question about the need to include in contracts provisions about quality. He said that citizens could complain if they felt that standards had not been maintained, but he did not answer my precise question, which was to the effect that there should in contracts be assurances to the effect that quality will be paramount. That is as significant as a citizen's charter.

Mr. Key: I noticed that, while I was answering the hon. Gentleman's earlier intervention, he was interrupted by a note being brought into the Chamber for him. I invite him to read the Official Report, and if he is not satisfied with my answer, perhaps he will write to me.
When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State returned to the Department of the Environment, he sought initially to evaluate what progress we had made from the point of view of inner cities and urban areas since he was last Secretary of State. He was pleased to discover that many of the targets that had been set in the early 1980s had been achieved. A great deal of inner-city regeneration was going on by urban development corporations, in enterprise zones and through the efforts of local


authorities. But something was still missing, and that was vision. There was a lack of vision among councillors, communities, the business community, voluntary organisations and so on, and he sought to find a way to encourage that vision.
My right hon. Friend found something else missing after that decade and more. He found that there was still no co-ordinated approach to inner-city regeneration. He realised that local and central government could not be expected to do it all, any more than one could expect individual firms, enterprises or communities to do it all. Accordingly, he set about trying to devise a scheme for competition which would bring in the authorities, with their partners, to achieve a real vision for regenerating quite small areas of their cities. The City Challenge initiative has proved to be exceptionally popular. The Secretary of State, the Minister of State and I are currently visiting cities and talking to local authorities.
It is staggering to discover the enthusiasm and commitment that is being put in by Labour authorities throughout the country. What a pity it is not the norm. What a pity it has taken a Conservative Secretary of State to bring it about. But it will work, and local authorities are bringing together the business community, private sector investors and others, some of whom have not talked to each other for years.
For example, we were in Bristol yesterday. Representatives of Bristol city council, Avon county council, the chamber of commerce, the Bristol initiative scheme, the civic society, churches and others from local communities were all present with me sitting in a room discussing their vision for parts of Bristol. What a pity that did not happen earlier. It is happening now as a result of the commitment of the Government to our inner cities.

Mr. Fearn: Does the Minister intend to visit Liverpool?

Mr. Key: My hon. Friend the Minister of State, as the Minister for Liverpool, is indeed concerned about Liverpool and will be going there, and to the Wirral, both of which have put in bids under the City Challenge procedure. By 5 July, all the 15 selected authorities will have put in their bids and then we, as Ministers, will have the difficult task of judging which 10 should be the winners. Though that will be difficult, in view of the level of commitment shown, it shows the way forward for the future.
Returning to the more mundane issue of the structure of local government, our objective is to maximise local government's capacity to deliver. This has also been a key factor in our approach to the vexed question of structure. What structure will best enable local government to provide effective and efficient services and, at the same time, reflect the sense of identity that people feel with their locality? We aim to produce a local government structure that is in tune with the wishes of the people of an area—the people local government exists to serve. This is clearly a question that interests a great many people. We invited responses to our consultation paper by last Friday. By the end of that day, some 1,500 responses had been received, and they are still coming in.
We intend to introduce legislation establishing the new local government commission, which will assess the most appropriate form of local government area by area, taking into account the wishes of local people. They are best placed to tell us which councils provide the best and most

efficient services. They are best placed to explain to central Government how they identify as geographical areas. Subject to parliamentary approval, the commission should be formally established by summer 1992 and we hope to see the first new unitary authorities set up on 1 April 1994.
What does the Labour party want to do? It pays lip service to government close to the people and says that it wants to impose a tier of regional government with 10 assemblies. It will take power from local people and from this Parliament.
Too often, the relationship between central and local government is seen as a battle. Too much is heard of the cries of vested interest disguised as "defenders of local democracy". We have been through a difficult time in the past 10 years, but it is now clear to most people in local government that the Government have been steering them in the right direction.
More and more authorities are grasping the opportunities for efficiency and value for money that we have given them. More and more have recognised that the enabling authority, and not the creaking old paternalistic ways of pre-1990 eastern Europe, is the model for the future. Exceptions such as Liverpool and Lambeth just serve to illustrate the point.
Respect has to be earned and is easily lost. People in local government want to be respected for the work that they do. Most of them now realise that the only way for local government to earn the public's respect is to provide quality services efficiently. This Government will continue to do all they can to help them.

Mr. Tony Banks: It would be peevish of me not to welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) on his motion. My speech will be somewhat shorter than the one that I should like to have made, given the number of issues that have been raised so far, but I do not wish to be selfish and other hon. Members also wish to speak before half-past two.
I regret the knockabout nature of the debate until the Government Front Bench became involved. I have some regard for the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), and I welcome his comment about councillors in local government, whether Tory or Labour, and the service that they provide. They do not receive the same salaries and fringe benefits as Members of Parliament, and in many cases, they get abuse, vilification and very little gratitude, even when they are doing a good job. The Minister's words contrasted starkly with those of the hon. Member for Stroud, who could have made a much better speech.

Mr. Knapman: The hon. Gentleman did not attend the debate until rather a later hour, so he cannot possibly know what I said in my speech.

Mr. Banks: I appeared in the Chamber at about 10 minutes to ten, when the hon. Gentleman had been speaking for about 11 minutes. He continued to speak for what seemed like an age but was probably about another 25 or 30 minutes, so I had a good idea of his drift. I certainly heard enough to make me feel fully justified in saying that such a sneering, carping, miserable, pathetic


speech was not worthy of him or of the House on such an important subject. I am glad that that is now also on the record.
Many Conservative Members take the simplistic approach that if a council is Labour controlled it is bad, and if it is Tory controlled it is good. That is fatuous, and it is impossible to have a properly structured, rational debate when people take that attitude. Anyone who knows anything about local government—I purport to know a little, having been involved in it for some years—will know that there are good Conservative local authorities, such as the one I spoke about earlier, Bournemouth, and there are bad ones. There are bad Labour authorites and good ones. But to take exceptions and use them as a way of attacking all Labour authorities or all local government is unworthy of Conservative Members and certainly not justified in relation to those who work so hard in local authorities.
The continual debates, Bills and orders on local authority matters that we now have in the House show how low grade and petty we have become in recent years. Part of the problem has arisen from the obsessive desire of recent Conservative Governments to decide everything centrally. The great helmswoman, during her period of office, could not resist interfering in everything, whether the opinions and affairs of her hon. Friends or the conduct of local government. As the Minister said, the notion that local government has become a battlefield is a true one, but it became a battlefield because of the enormous hostility of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) towards local government. London in particular became a battlefield, to the point where she decided that she was not prepared to tolerate what was going on in county hall in the Greater London council, so she abolished it, along with the metropolitan county councils. That is no way for parliamentary sovereignty to be used. It is not true democracy if someone decides that she does not like what is going on in a particular town or county hall and so uses the parliamentary majority to abolish it.
It still rankles with me that someone can approach structures of local government in London and elsewhere by deciding, with a flourish of the pen, that the whole structure is to be abolished. We have heard much talk from Conservative Members, particularly Ministers, about devolution and accountability in local government, but the process used by them has always been to centralise and remove from scrutiny. More and more local government fuctions are moving into the hands of quangos, indirectly elected organisations and Government Departments, where Members of the House cannot scrutinise them. The desire to centralise and the hostility towards local government mean that we have many debates about a section of political activity that we should leave to the people involved, so that they are accountable only to those whom they represent through the ballot box.
Another part of the problem of local authority debates and matters in this House is that we have seen the absolute and relative decline of the whole country. There was a time when local government rarely came up as an issue in the House, apart from the rate support grant and the annual debate. For the rest of the time, central Government allowed local authorities to go their own way and to carry out the functions for which they were elected.
The country has been turned into a bit player among

the family of nations, particularly in Europe. That fact is reflected in the House and how we conduct our business today. We are turning into a low-grade, provincial Parliament on the edge of Europe, working ever harder on matters of ever-diminishing importance.
There have been many tumultous events in eastern Europe, in Africa and in Latin America. Around the world, in places such as Africa, people are starving. People are in turmoil and are reaching out for new democratic structures that they have not experienced. The hon. Member for Stroud could have tabled a motion so that we could discuss significant matters affecting the world, and particularly this country, but because there is a by-election in Walton, a party-political knockabout was introduced to try to stir up a bit of nastiness so that the Labour party would lose a few votes in the Liverpool, Walton constituency. I am happy to give all hon. Members their opportunity for knockabout, but I bet any Conservative Member present whatever amount—they are all far wealthier than me—that the Conservative party will not win the by-election in Liverpool, Walton. Indeed, the Conservative candidate will be lucky to hold on to his deposit. All the puff and wind on the Conservative Benches will not win them any votes in Liverpool.
As for local government provision of housing in London, there is a housing crisis in the capital. There are 20,000 empty council properties in London, but there are also 97,000 empty private sector houses in London. The Select Committee reported only yesterday that the Government are responsible for the fact that there are 31,000 empty properties that could be used to house the homeless. Throwing statistics backwards and forwards is an insult to the homeless. It is disgusting and nauseous that the homeless have been turned into a political football. Conservative Members are not prepared to sit down with us and try to solve the homelessness problem in London, which has reached crisis proportions. We are trying to find a consensual way out. The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) laughs—

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I was not laughing.

Mr. Banks: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. The idea of a Labour local authority sitting down with central Government, or Labour politicians sitting down with Conservative politicians, to find an agreed way out of what we all accept is a scandal in this capital city —80,000 people in bed and breakfast accommodation and perhaps 10,000 people sleeping on the streets—is apparently something that he regards as funny. That is absolutely staggering.

Mr. Arnold: I am amazed at the hypocrisy of it all. The council with the largest number of unoccupied council flats in Greater London is the hon. Gentleman's own Labour-controlled council in Newham. He should not be sitting down with us discussing it—the Labour council in Newham should get on with solving the problem.

Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman is misinformed to the point of being a fool. If he knew anything about the London borough of Newham, he would realise that the fact that there are so many vacant properties is due to the council having to move people out of unsafe tower blocks, built by Taylor Walker Anglian. Ronan Point was so unsafe that part of it fell down and people were killed. We have had to move hundreds of families out of tower blocks


because they were unsafe to live in. For a Conservative Member to say that there is something wrong with us in Newham as we have so many vacant properties—because we have moved people out of properties that were in danger of falling down and taking people with them—seems to me not hypocrisy but stupidity developed into an art form, something in which the hon. Gentleman specialises.
As for empty properties in London in either Conservative or Labour-controlled local authorities, when Conservative authorities want to do something about housing the homeless in their boroughs—I exclude Westminster from the list—they find that they cannot get the money to rehouse people in those empty dwellings. For example, in the past year the withdrawal of Government subsidies forced London boroughs to increase council rents by 22·9 per cent., compared with 13·8 per cent. in the country as a whole. The reason for so many rent arrears in London is the simple fact that people cannot afford to pay the rent. That is a major problem, but Conservative Members do not seem to think that it exists.
There have also been Government cuts in local authority capital spending on council housing in London. That has hit London far harder than anywhere else. In real terms, there has been an estimated 74 per cent. fall in London between 1979 and 1991, compared with a 64 per cent. fall nationally. That is the reason for so many empty properties and why rent arrears are so high. One does not need to have a PhD in housing administration to work out why there is a housing crisis in London. For example, London councils had 170,000 fewer homes for rent at the end of the 1980s than they had at the beginning of the decade because they had been sold off and were no longer available to rent.
There has been an 80 per cent. cut in the housing investment programme allocation by central Government. Local authorities cannot afford to build houses now. In the 1970s, London local authorities built 25,000 units of accommodation per year. Now they are building 1,500 per year. Some local authorities are building none. Is it surprising, therefore, that there are 80,000 people in bed and breakfast and temporary accommodation in central London? Conservative Members throw out cheap, silly sneers about vacant properties and the level of rent arrears, but they are not interested in solving the housing problem or in the homeless people in London. Many of the homeless, by definition, do not have the vote, so they are not part of Conservative Members' political considerations, but the homeless do exist and they are a real problem in Labour-held boroughs. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) was absolutely right to say that Labour authorities have so many problems because they cover the poorest areas, where the problems are legion.
It is no good saying that it is all about value for money. I understand the principle, but we need the money to start with. Since 1979 money has been taken away from local authorities which have then been told that they are somehow not managing to deal with their problems. Someone who is now departed—although not far enough for me—said, "You don't solve problems by throwing money at them", but nor does one solve them by taking money away, which is what has been happening in local government since 1979. It has been robbed blind by the Government.
I am conscious of the time. There are still many points that I should like to make, but I am not selfish and I intend

to give way to an hon. Member with whom I shall disagree entirely. However, anyone who arrives at the beginning of a private Member's debate on a Friday morning is entitled to his four pennyworth, and I have already had three and a half pennyworth.
The Minister mentioned the paper on the reform of the structure of local government. Why should we not have another look at local government? We seem to be spending all our time looking at and interfering with local government structure. I resent the fact that the one area that has been excluded from any consideration for structural change has been the capital city. That has been deliberate. There are one or two sensible Tories—none of them in the House at the moment, except the Minister—who come to me and say that it makes sense to have a strategic authority for London because it needs one.
When Londoners have a Labour Government after the next general election, they will have a strategic authority which will be called the Greater London authority. I hope that it will be based at county hall and will provide Londoners with something that they are unique in not having. London is the only capital city that does not have a citywide local government structure. That is appalling, and it is an indictment of the Government—and especially of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who still looms large enough for even the sensible Tories not to vote as they would like and restore strategic government for London.
About 50 per cent. of Londoners would quit the capital city if they could—for a variety of reasons, of which transport is the primary one. Other reasons include the filthy streets, the potholed roads and the general poor quality of life, all of which make London a pretty nasty, unco-ordinated and unpleasant place to live. The transport system is overcrowded and the provision of many services is bad. One thing is clear: two thirds of Londoners say that London needs a strategic authority. Conservative Members should listen carefully as we are approaching a general election. I do not expect this Government to provide us with such a strategic authority, but London will have one as soon as the Labour Government are elected.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) ended with the comment, "as soon as the Labour Government are elected." That is an abstraction. How can we know what the Labour Government would do when we have to rely on the peppering of pledges that we have heard in the House time and again? The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has done the House a great service by costing those pledges and showing that an abstract Labour Government would mean an extra 15p in the £1 on the standard rate of income tax.
We need not consider abstractions or look into the crystal ball; we can look at the book of Labour government in action, and that is where this debate is so useful. In the New Statesman and Society—the Labour party's house magazine—Sarah Baxter put it clearly when she said:
Local authorities have provided the sole model of Labour in power in the past decade (and many have given the electorate a good fright)".
How right she is. Whichever way one looks at the Labour party in government, one sees high taxation.
Which councils have the highest community charge this year? The five top chargers are Labour councils. Lambeth charged £450 and Haringey charged £420—what one might call the loonie left of London. Bristol is in third place, Islington is fourth and Oxford, of all places, is fifth. They are all Labour councils. Liverpool, which we have discussed today, is ripping off from its community charge payers the 10th highest charge.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) for raising the specific matter of the delivery of local government services. Let us have a quick look at how local councils deliver those services. Education is the largest service. Let us consider the councils that spend the most on education and then let us consider what they deliver in terms of the examination results of the youngsters about whom we should be concerned.
Let us look back two years ago to the unlamented Inner London education authority which had the highest spending on each child. Out of the 96 education authorities, its youngsters came 88th in terms of examination results. That hardly served those youngsters and was hardly value for money in giving them education. The second highest spender was Labour-controlled Waltham Forest, but its examination results were 95th out of 96 as a result of the education given under that authority. The third highest spender was Brent, which was then Labour, but in its examinations it was 75th out of 96. Newham, which is dear to the heart of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, was the fourth highest spender, yet managed to clock in at 93rd out of 96 in the examination performance of its youngsters. That is hardly value for money and is hardly good education for the children concerned. Why is that occurring?
Let us consider which authorities spend the most of their employment money within the education service on teachers in the classroom—the teachers who teach the children. In Newcastle upon Tyne, which is Labour controlled, fewer than half the staff in the education department are teaching the children. Some 54 per cent. are non-teachers—bureaucrats, administrators and good- ness knows what else. In Coventry, the second on the list, fewer than half the staff in the education department are teachers of children. The third worst is Cleveland, which is Labour controlled, and it is followed by Sheffield, which is Labour controlled, and Northumberland, which is Labour controlled, where 49 per cent. of the education department staff are not teachers. What is education all about if money is not put up front where the children are to be educated?

Mr. Cohen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Arnold: If I am quick, the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to speak later.
The Government have given great encouragement to our councils to put money up front in our schools under local financial management. Which councils put the least money up front in the schools for spending directly on teachers and on provision for our children? Which councils hold back the most for the central bureaucracy? Again, we find that it is Labour councils. Cumbria, under Labour and Liberal Democrat control, retains almost 29 per cent. of the money at the centre rather than spending it on schools. Haringey, which is Labour controlled,

retains 28·6 per cent. Newcastle, which is Labour controlled, retains 28·2 per cent. It would rather spend the money on the central bureaucracy than on the schools in which our children are taught.
The other great local government service is housing. Housing is provided for people in need to live in, as was said by Labour Members. Which are the 10 authorities with the highest number of vacant properties? All are Labour controlled and include Manchester, Liverpool, Salford, Sheffield, Birmingham, Newcastle upon Tyne, Newham of which we spoke, Leeds and Sunderland. They are Labour councils that cannot administer their housing stock properly. Why not? One reason is that they do not have the money; but why is that? It is because they are incompetent and do not collect their rents properly.
I wonder how many people know that when Brent was controlled by the Labour party 44 per cent. of its annual rents were not collected; it had arrears on the roll. In Lambeth, 32 per cent. of the rents were not collected. In Southwark—Labour-controlled again—31·9 per cent. were not collected. We can go all the way down the list of Labour councils—Hackney, Islington, Ealing, Liverpool, Haringey, Waltham Forest, and Newham. none of them collect their full rents and they therefore do not have the money for instance to reconstruct tower blocks that were built under Labour councils in the first place.
Those are all cases of incompetence, but there is worse to come. Look at the waste. Why did Birmingham's Labour council see fit to spend ratepayers' money on 149 trips to 31 countries, including Puerto Rico, the Gambia, Hong Kong, Japan, Australia, the United States and Pakistan? The most popular destination was France, with 29 trips. What does that have to do with local councils delivering services to local people? We have heard about Derbyshire, and the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) condescendingly said that he had returned £52 to Derbyshire county council. Perhaps that defrayed some of the expense of the county council's party to celebrate the release of Nelson Mandela, which cost local charge payers £2,000. Can that be described as money going into local services?
Labour-controlled Bradford voted to spend £10,000 to commemorate a strike that had taken place in the city 100 years ago. Is that a priority for funds? That is Labour local government in action.
The examples that I have given are of incompetence and misdirected services—

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Let me give my hon. Friend an example on a larger scale. During five years of Labour control, with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West Mr. Banks) as a committee chairman and then as chairman of the council, the GLC spent £8,870,000,000. Can my hon. Friend think of anything that improved during that time?

Mr. Arnold: No, I cannot—nor has any Labour Member given any evidence today of improvements taking place.
We are told, "Never mind the incompetence and the failure to deliver services; at least we have got rid of the loonie left." But have we really? Did we know that, during the Gulf war, Lambeth and Lewisham Labour councils both ordered drivers to remove union jacks from council vans and minibuses? Did we know that Harlow Labour council has prohibited the playing of the national anthem


at council functions? Did we know that Labour-controlled Manchester spent £47,440 on a gay village and £33,000 on a lesbian link counselling project? Are they the local services delivered by Labour government in action? And Camden spent £17,000 a year on a lesbian day centre. What kind of councils are these?

Mr. Knapman: My hon. Friend is being unfair to Hackney, which has organised a six-week course of counselling sessions for grieving black lesbians. Despite a considerable amount spent on publicity, it has not yet found a single grieving black lesbian. Will my hon. Friend comment on that matter?

Mr. Arnold: Yes. Labour councils are obsessed with such shibboleths when they should be getting down to brass tacks and delivering services to local residents.
Let us look at what some leading Labour council leaders and commentators have to say about their performance. The current leader of Labour-controlled Liverpool city council, Councillor Harry Rimmer, said:
We know we are overstaffed, we know we are inefficient
Well, what are they doing about it? In Labour-controlled Bristol, Jim Williams, Bristol's first black lord mayor, was dropped by Labour as a candidate in this year's council election. He said:
I have been told they decided to get rid of me because I wasn't green enough and I wasn't left-wing enough.
That is the modern sanitised Labour party. The former Labour leader of Liverpool city council, Keva Coombs, said:
There just isn't any proper management and we should have worked harder to ensure there was.
What are they waiting for?
Joan Twelves, the Labour leader of Lambeth borough council, said:
It is hard to find the right word to describe the state of Lambeth's finances—`dire' is close.
On the question of the former Greater London council, so beloved of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, Ben Jones, a commentator in Labour Briefing, said:
A campaign to re-establish the GLC could be very popular but unfortunately the dire record of Labour local government undermines the enthusiasm that exists." He could not have put it better.

Mr. Harry Cohen: As time is short, I shall not follow Conservative Members' anecdotal attacks on Labour local authorities. They did not once mention Westminster council, with its selling of cemeteries for 15p and its wish to sell its homeless people to other boroughs, despite the fact that it has plenty of empty houses. Conservative Members conveniently forget Tory examples. Such anecdotes are part of their overall attack on Labour authorities. They cite all the anecdotal evidence because they want to cover the fact that the Government have cut grants to Labour local authorities. Billions of pounds of central Government grant have been taken away from Labour authorities so that they can no longer provide the services that their areas need.
I welcome the debate on local government services because I want to raise the important issue of the housing crisis, both in my borough and in London generally. It is a desperate crisis. Some 33,400 households—more than 80,000 people—are living in temporary accommodation awaiting a permanent home. That is a tenfold increase over the past year. If I had brought to the House all those

people in my housing file, I could have filled the Benches on both sides of the House. I will cite the first case that I picked up this morning. A Mr. Raja wrote to me saying:
I have been living at …for the last 13 years with my wife and six children ranging from 1 to 12 years …in appalling conditions as I am occupying only one room.
I intend to raise his case with the council. He and his family would have had a much greater chance of being rehoused a decade ago. Now, he has little chance because of the housing crisis. I suspect that, after I have raised his case with the council, yet another sorry reply will be sent to him.
My housing authority in Waltham Forest is relatively good, especially in the circumstance of various options being closed by the Government. It has avoided bed and breakfast. It has fewer empty properties than most other authorities—certainly fewer than the private sector and fewer than central Government, who preside over 31,000 empty houses, often for a long time.
I wish to refer to the report of the director of housing for Waltham Forest. It is a microcosm of the crisis faced by London local authorities. It points out that there has been a massive increase of 58 per cent. in homelessness during the first few months of 1991, compared with the same period in 1990. There has been no increase in staff to cope with that because of the pressure caused by the poll tax. Casework is falling behind, with ever more cases needing investigation. The homeless are having to wait for up to nine months before they are offered accommodation. More than 500 cases are waiting to be investigated.
The director says that there is no one reason for the increase in homelessness, but he says that the number of people with mortgage difficulties is now twice as high, and the number of applications from refugees is two and a half times as high. No money comes from the Government, to help. The director points out that the number of applications from people who have lost private rented accommodation is one and a half times as high. If friends and relatives are not willing to accommodate an applicant, he is pushed further down the queue and told to make his own arrangements.
On the other side of the coin, the housing director points out that the supply of accommodation has been significantly reduced. The number of houses available in November, December and January fell from 195 in 1989–90 to 158 in 1990–91. Nominations to housing associations are much lower. The number of properties that an authority can lease for homeless people has dried up because the Government revised the subsidy reviews in October 1990. The effects trickle through because it takes time to negotiate leases.
The housing director points out that many families have to go into one-bedroom accommodation because that is all that is available. Even with families in such unsuitable accommodation, this year there will be a shortfall of 370 properties. Only 209 urgent cases out of a waiting list of thousands will be rehoused.
Many people are told to make their own temporary arrangements for an indefinite period and many are in grossly inadequate accommodation. People in category A special management transfers—for example, victims of domestic violence or racial harassment—cannot get rehoused. Even the useful transfers list—whereby people in family-sized accommodation move to smaller, more


suitable accommodation, making their houses available for families—is clogged up because of the enormous pressure.
The housing director concludes by pointing out the impact on staff. He says:
The rise in homeless has obviously created severe pressures on staff. Not only the increased work in investigating applications, but also the additional work involved in advising and counselling people turned away who would otherwise be rehoused and who may refuse to leave the office, have not been matched by more staff and have contributed to the high levels of stress and poor morale amongst officers in the Homeless Persons and Housing Advice Units.
We all extend our condolences to the family of the planning officer who was shot. It was a shocking incident. I am amazed that more people in housing departments —[Interruption.] Many people fall victim or are put at risk in a similar way. As well as extending condolences, the Minister should institute a review of security for local officers who face such risks.
I welcome the debate. I checked with the Library and found that the last debate on housing and homelessness was on 3 July 1990. It is a scandal that the House has put off discussing a problem of such magnitude. The Conservative party has been in power for the past 12 years. The Government have created this crisis. They sold the best houses and did not make all the money available to the councils that owned them. The houses were sold at big discounts, and because of Treasury regulations the councils were not allowed to spend even amounts that they received from those sales on improving existing homes or building new ones.

Mr. Tony Banks: The councils have faced huge cuts.

Mr. Cohen: As my hon. Friend says, there have been huge cuts in the housing investment allocation, amounting to 80 per cent. in real terms. The consequence has been enormous personal misery for Mr. Raja and his family, and for all the others I have encountered in my caseload or at my advice surgery. The papers that I have received about this matter would fill these Benches—and I am talking only about my caseload, let alone those of other hon. Members. That damage will take years and years—

It being half past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — Private Members' Bills

HARE COURSING BILL

Order read for consideration (not amended in the Standing Committee).

Hon. Members: Object.

Consideration deferred till 28 June.

BREEDING OF DOGS BILL

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Alan Williams.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I must point out that Mr. Speaker deprecates further stages of a Bill being taken without notice. Does any hon. Member object to our proceedings? So be it.

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading) and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

NATIONAL AUDIT (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. Second Reading what day?

Mr. Tony Banks: With the agreement of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, Friday 28 June.

Second Reading deferred till 28 June.

TRAINING AND ENTERPRISE COUNCILS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till 28 June.

FORESTRY COMMISSION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till 28 June.

TRADE DESCRIPTIONS (ANIMAL TESTING) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till 28 June.

PARISH COUNCILS (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till 28 June.

COAL IMPORTS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till 28 June.

HOSPITAL SCHOOLS IN LONDON BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till 28 June.

ELIMINATION OF POVERTY IN RETIREMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till 28 June.

DANGEROUS WILD ANIMALS ACT 1976 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the Bill has not been printed, I decline to put the Question.

Second Reading deferred till 28 June.

HEALTH CARE OF PRISONERS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till 28 June.

EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN ACT 1973 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till 28 June.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 26th June, the Motion in the name of Mr. John MacGregor relating to European Standing Committees may be proceeded with, though opposed, for one and a half hours after it has been entered upon, and, if those proceedings have not previously been disposed of, Mr. Speaker shall at that hour put the Questions necessary to dispose of them, including the Questions on any Amendments to the said Motion which he may have selected which may then be moved.—[Mr. David Davis.]

Northern Ireland (Ministerial Accountability)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. David Davis.]

Mr. David Trimble: The question of accountability lies at the heart of the functions of the House and was established by our predecessor but one, the English Parliament, which had a clear tradition of refusing to grant supply to the monarch until there had been redress of grievances, thus eventually helping to establish the principle that Ministers were accountable to the House.
Accountability has three different aspects: the accountability of the Administration as a whole, of the entire Government, which has to command a majority within the House; the accountability of individual Ministers to the House and their relationship with hon. Members; and Ministers' accountability to their colleagues in government, which could also be regarded as an aspect of collective responsibility.
1 intend not to discuss the position of the Government as a whole, but to concentrate on the accountability of Ministers. I shall mention four aspects of accountability and of Ministers' relationship with hon. Members and the House. One may approach Ministers or raise issues with them through correspondence and in oral and written questions. Ministers are also accountable to the Committees of the House.
I am sure that the House is aware that hon. Members representing Northern Ireland have a serious grievance with regard to that latter aspect of Ministers' accountability—the absence of a Select Committee on Northern Ireland. Select Committees were introduced comparatively recently in the life of Parliament. The present Select Committees stem from 1979. They were established to strengthen the function of the House and its role with regard to accountability. They were established for all Government Departments but one. There is one major Government Department for which there is no Select Committee—the Northern Ireland Office. Every other major Government Department has a Select Committee. There are Select Committees for Home Affairs, Trade and Industry, Foreign Affairs, Health, and Social Security. The other two territorial Departments have Select Committees; the Welsh Office has a Select Committee, and there is provision for a Select Committee for the Scottish Office. I say "provision" because, due to difficulties over membership, it has not proved possible to constitute it during this Parliament. However, there is no Northern Ireland Select Committee.
To remedy that gap, other Select Committees have tried to cover Northern Ireland matters by including them within their remit, but it has not been a happy experience. I do not intend to discuss that at any great length because it is covered fairly adequately by the recent report of the Select Committee on Procedure on Select Committees and I assume that at some time in the not-too-distant future there will be an opportunity for the House to discuss that report and such issues can then be touched upon.
I direct the attention of hon. Members to a few passages from that report. In paragraph 46 the Procedure Committee said:


very few Committees made any specific mention of this aspect"—
Northern Ireland matters—
in their orders of reference. The Energy Committee has made some attempt to cover the affairs of the Province with one visit and evidence and Reports on the Gas Industry and on Electricity Supply in Northern Ireland. The Chairman of the Committee acknowledged however, that it had 'only occasionally fulfilled its duties to examine Northern Ireland matters', and he added ' I do not believe that Committees with Great Britain members alone will ever do justice to Northern Ireland issues'.
Other Committees have not even attempted to cover Northern Ireland matters. Paragraph 47 of the report of the Select Committee on Procedure refers to the views of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, who reveals that he has not attempted even to cover Northern Ireland issues. He appears to think that he should not do so. As the report says, there has been a fragmentary coverage of Northern Ireland affairs. A few Committees have tried—recently, the Select Committee on Health.
The fragmentary coverage means that the Northern Ireland Office escapes scrutiny. Some of its functions and matters within its purview might occasionally be covered by other Select Committees, but attention is inconsistent and one cannot expect each Select Committee to adopt the same approach. For that reason, the Procedure Select Committee concluded that there was a case—in my view, a strong case—
for bringing the Northern Ireland Office formally within the system of scrutiny by Select Committees.
It is interesting that the Government accepted that case in their response to the report. The key sentence is:
The Government accepts that, in principle, a select committee concerned solely with the work of the NIO and Northern Ireland Departments may be desirable in order to ensure that Northern Ireland matters receive the parliamentary scrutiny they deserve.
That is a significant concession from the Government, and it must be regarded as such. If they concede that, why have steps not been taken to establish such a Committee? The Procedure Select Committee considered it to be desirable, there is considerable evidence to show that it is desirable, and the Government have acknowledged that it is desirable. Why, then, has it not been done? It is not because of difficulties such as those encountered by the Scottish Office in setting up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.
We in Northern Ireland are perhaps more tolerant than the Scots and even the Welsh. We have said that we are prepared to allow hon. Members who represent constituencies outside Northern Ireland to be part of our Select Committee. Not only that, we are even prepared to allow them to be in the majority. We are so anxious to see such a Select Committee established that we are prepared to accept a minority role on it. That shows our anxiety to establish this important Committee and to reinforce the important function of the House to bring the Executive to account and to scrutinise the functions of government. There is a clear need for that scrutiny.
I have said that contacts with Ministers come not only through the House and its Committees, but through questions and correspondence. I do not intend to refer to oral questions and Question Time, which is a rather special, almost gladiatorial exercise. One does not expect and one rarely sees any significant result from it. In

passing, however, it is noticeable—other hon. Members have noticed this with regard to other oral question proceedings—how the Government seem to try to pack the Order Paper. I feel keenly about that.
I tabled a question for each of the past four Northern Ireland Question Times, but only once did my question even get on the Order Paper. I had the chagrin of seeing that the early questions on the Order Paper were tabled by Members who were not only not from Northern Ireland —that is not so bad—but who had not displayed any particular interest in Northern Ireland. One suspects that they were encouraged to table their questions to give Ministers the opportunity to have a breather or to spin out the time and prevent other hon. Members from raising important issues.
The matters that I want to raise about the conduct of individual Ministers relate to written questions and correspondence. Those are issues about which one expects Ministers to be accountable to hon. Members, and I am not happy with the situation. The problem with correspondence is the regrettable delay between writing and receiving replies from some Ministers at the Northern Ireland Office.
I asked my consituency secretary to go through my files of corespondence, and I confess that I asked for the correspondence with the Minister who is the slowest to respond, who I regret to say is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), and I will give an example of the problem concerning him.
There was outside Portadown in my constituency an issue of considerable importance to the local community concerning a tip or dump on an old quarry that was being used as a landfill site for domestic waste. A fly-by-night cowboy operator from Dundalk—in the Irish Republic; where else?—had somehow managed to erect on that tip a number of storage tanks for industrial waste. They were on a tip for domestic waste from which methane gas was escaping and regularly being ignited. There was much concern about it in the locality and I raised the issue at Government level.
The first time I wrote to the Minister on the subject was on 10 December 1990. I received holding replies on 17 December and 3 January and a substantive reply on 21 January, an interval of six weeks. I wrote again on 23 January. I received holding replies on 25 January and 5 February and a substantive reply on 28 February, a five-week interval. Prior to receiving that reply I had written another substantive letter, on 26 February, and I received holding replies on 28 February and 12 March and finally a substantive reply on 18 April, an interval of seven weeks.
It was not as if the replies required important research on detailed technical matters. It was a straightforward issue, but there were intervals of six, five and seven weeks, and that was not unusual. On other issues I have experienced intervals of four, 10, five, four, nine and seven weeks. If the Minister would like the details, I will furnish him with the list. It is not a satisfactory record.
I am reminded of a comment from the time of the Kilbrandon commission many years ago when the question of devolution was under consideration. That commission referred, in regard to local accountability, to a person who had given evidence before the commission and who said that Government officers and Ministers should be located in relation to the individual citizen in


such a way that an angry farmer could take a bus, visit the relevant Minister, horsewhip him and get back home before nightfall. That may not be altogether possible in the present security position back home, but sometimes it might be thought to be appropriate.
I have been dealing with the problems that hon. Members face when letters are sent to the Northern Ireland Office. The situation is not happy when it comes to written questions, and in that connection I shall cite some exchanges that I have had with the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), who will reply to this debate.
I tabled questions about new health boards that had been established in Northern Ireland. I raised the issue because, like many others, I was concerned about the quality of the persons who had been nominated. As for the nomination of non-experts, non-professional staff, there was no element, so far as one could see, of a representative character or balance, but we have become accustomed to that from the Northern Ireland Office, which rarely makes an effort to be representative and fair in its distribution of appointments.
As I was as much concerned with quality as with representation, I tabled a written question asking the Minister
if he will list the members of the …boards …indicating in respect of each the original nominating person or body; and whether there was consultation at any stage in respect of each such member with the Government of the Irish Republic".—[Official Report, I May 1991; Vol. 190, c. 199.]
I received from the Minister an answer referring me to earlier answers he had given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) in which the names had been listed, but there was no reference to the other matters that I had raised about the original nominating person or body.
So I tabled a further question, which the Minister answered on 20 May 1991. I asked the Minister whether
he has anything to add to his reply of 1 May in respect of the original nominating person or body of those appointed to serve on health and social security boards".—[Official Report, 20 May 1991; Vol. 191, c. 379.]
The Minister said that he had nothing to add. That was particularly unsatisfactory given that I had framed my question in that way because I had seen an answer dated 25 March 1991, given by a Minister responsible for Scotland. He had been asked to give the original nominating body of each member who had been appointed to those boards. He complied with that request and listed all the members, giving their occupations and the original nominating person or body. The Minister was happy to acknowledge that the first appointment on the list was the Scottish Conservative party. The list also includes local health councils, the CBI, cancer research committees, local authorities, Conservative constituency associations, Conservative Members, Ministers, persons connected with the Conservative party and other bodies such as universities, the Red Cross Society, the Women's Royal Voluntary Service and other such bodies.
If the Scottish Minister had no hesitation in revealing the original nominating bodies, why is there a difference with regard to Northern Ireland matters? If that information can be made available for Scotland, why cannot it be made available for Northern Ireland'? 'What is the difference'? Why is there such secrecy'? What is the Minister trying to hide?
A question tabled for Northern Ireland questions about a week ago by the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) appeared briefly on the Order Paper and was then withdrawn. It asked the Secretary of State to make a statement in response to the report on the Irish sea of the environment education and culture committee of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body. At Northern Ireland questions last Thursday, that question had been withdrawn and we can guess why—the report is secret, like so many other matters connected with the Anglo-Irish Agreement. That, one suspects, is the reason behind the secrecy in this case. The Minister is reluctant to reveal matters relating to the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
I said at the outset that, as well as being accountable to individual hon. Members, Ministers are also accountable to the Government of which they form part. That is partly why my original question referred to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. However, Northern Ireland Office Ministers are in a slightly different position from others because they are accountable not only to the Government but to a Government of another country—the Irish Republic, which has been given the right to propose and nominate persons. Perhaps that is what the Minister was concealing—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes an answer from the Minister, he must draw his remarks to a close. Time is short and the debate must end at 3.3 pm.

Mr. Trimble: Thank you for reminding me of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Once again, I have been more long-winded than I intended, but I shall draw the matter to a close.
I suspect that the Minister is concealing the extent to which the Northern Ireland Office has compromised the sovereignty of the House. We saw another example of that last night when the Secretary of State referred to the difficulties that he is now creating for himself with regard to the inter-party talks in Northern Ireland. The subject may be raised at meetings to be held later today. I hope that when the Secretary of State meets both his masters he will entreat them to get him out of the difficulties in which he found himself last night.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): When I saw the subject of today's debate I wondered what heinous error of omission or commission I or one of my ministerial colleagues might have committed. Since I was appointed to this post by the Prime Minister, I have worked long hours, late into the night, as have my colleagues, to answer as speedily but as fully as possible any letter or question posed by hon. Members and their constituents, either through correspondence or in the House.
Why should the accountability of Northern Ireland Office Ministers require special debate? What makes us different from Ministers of other Departments? Are we any the less accountable to Parliament or the public for what we do? As hon. Members will know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is in no different position from any other Cabinet Minister as far


as accountability to the House goes. He faces questions in the House; he has to deal with parliamentary debates and motions in the same way as his colleagues.
Yesterday, a debate in Committee was dealt with by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), and yesterday evening there were six and a half hours of debate in the Chamber exclusively on Northern Ireland business. Therefore, all Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office are called to account, which I suppose is exactly what the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) is doing today. He is using his rights to call us to account.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann did not deal specifically with the constitutional position of Northern Ireland, but it is important. We have a special way of legislating for Northern Ireland in this House—we use an Order in Council procedure. That is, in some ways, unsatisfactory and is regarded as such by most people, but it is the least bad way of legislating for the Province at present. The fact that hon. Members cannot amend Orders in Council in the same way as they can amend Bills is far from ideal. As the hon. Member well knows, however, exceptional measures are taken to enable consultation on proposed draft orders, including the publication in advance of the actual text of the proposed legislation. That enables hon. Members and other interested parties to discuss the proposals in the full knowledge of what is entailed and to comment on the detailed wording of the proposed legislation. The Government are, of course, pleased to be able to discuss and take account of, as far as possible, comments that may be offered. The Northern Ireland Committee to which the hon. Gentleman referred, has just been brought back into use—at the request of the hon. Gentleman's party. I am happy to say that it provides a parliamentary forum in which issues relating exclusively to Northern Ireland can be debated. As the hon. Member knows, that Committee is a purely considerative body, but I am sure that it can provide another useful opportunity for Northern Ireland Members to seek explanations of ministerial policies and legislative proposals and for Northern Ireland Ministers to provide them. Of course, once a draft order is laid, Ministers must come to the House to debate it before it can be put to the Privy Council. Therefore, even if accountability on this sort of legislation is not of the same type as in the case of Bills, it still exists and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and all my colleagues take seriously—as I do—their responsibilities to ensure that legislation for Northern Ireland is properly prepared, properly explained and properly delivered to Parliament and to the people of Northern Ireland.
The hon. Gentleman referred specifically to the question of ministerial accountability to Parliament through the Select Committee system. There is no provision in the House's Standing Orders for a territorial Select Committee. There is no shadow for the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments. Whatever comfort we might derive from that is, of course, tempered by the knowledge that the Secretary of State, other Ministers, myself and our civil servants can be called before any of the departmental Select Committees. The hon. Gentleman said that that system was not satisfactory,

but the Select Committee on Trade and Industry can look into the work of the Department of Economic Development and the Industrial Development Board; the Agriculture Committee can look at the work of the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland—I have been summoned before the Committee next week, on the subject of fallen animals. The Public Accounts Committee has the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments within its remit, as it showed this week when it investigated and took evidence from the chief executive of the health service on the subject of trust status and the other reforms. The Select Committee on Energy intends to undertake an inquiry into the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity. Therefore, the absence of a territorial Select Committee does not mean that the Northern Ireland Office Ministers are immune from accountability to the Select Committee system.
I appreciate that a Select Committee, based on territorial grounds specifically for Northern Ireland, might give a keener focus to the scrutiny of Northern Ireland matters in Parliament. The Government said as much in their reply, published in May, to the relevant comments in the Procedure Committee's report on the working of the Select Committee system. However, in line with the Procedure Committee, we do not feel that this is the right time to agree to the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee. We should need to be satisfied that the establishment of such a Committee would be supported by elected representatives from both sides of the community in Northern Ireland. That is exactly what we are discussing, to an extent, in the talks that are under way. The issue is under review. It may well be raised in the talks at Stormont, or further afield.
The hon. Gentleman said that the British-Irish Parliamentary Body is a creature of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I must disabuse him of that fact. The British-Irish Parliamentary Body was established well in advance of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. That is why the hon. Gentleman's party was invited to join. I regret that it has not done so. I believe that the British-Irish Parliamentary Body is doing a lot of good work.
If I may refer briefly to parliamentary questions, the hon. Gentleman referred to my fellow Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), and also to questions that the hon. Gentleman put to me. I shall certainly look into these specific cases with care and write to him about them.
As for the health boards, I had not appreciated until today that an answer had been given by the Scottish Office. I shall therefore have a look at it. We try as hard as possible to make sure that our answers are very full. One of the features of Northern Ireland questions, though not those asked by the hon. Gentleman, is that many of them are tabled as priority written questions. That gives us little time in which to make available a great deal of detailed information. However, the hon. Gentleman is right when he says that Members of Parliament deserve full answers within the time scale, if that is possible. I shall therefore look into that matter. That is a pledge.
I should like to deal with another issue that was raised last night by the hon. Gentleman. I have little time in which to do so, but he may like to know that since he raised the subject of the international covenant on civil and political rights—in particular, article 25—in last night's debate, I have looked into the issue. It may be of assistance to him, as this is part of the subject of


accountability, to know that the people of Northern Ireland have the right, without unreasonable restrictions, to take part in the conduct of public affairs. They have the right to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections, both at district council and national level. They have access to that public service on general terms of equality.
Direct rule is not the ideal method to conduct the affairs of Northern Ireland. It is precisely for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his predecessors made repeated attempts to bring about a situation in which direct rule would no longer be necessary. That is why my right hon. Friend has spent, and is spending, so much time and effort on the present political talks. In these circumstances, rather than concentrate on the perceived deficiencies of the present arrangement, I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his

colleagues will bend all their efforts towards finding a way to help the present talks forward to a successful conclusion. The Government are committed to fair government until an alternative form of government is agreed by all the parties concerned. Until that day, I hope that we shall remain accountable to the hon. Gentleman and Parliament as a whole, that we shall produce the very best service that Northern Ireland not only needs but deserves and that our accountability will be seen to be as good as any Government could produce.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his good fortune in having secured this debate and I thank him for the courteous way in which he made his comments.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Three o'clock.